Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Content removal.

"WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

Technical instructions for closers

Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

• Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
• Wikipedia:Proposed article splits

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1156#Boomerang_topic_ban_proposal_for_User:Hcsrctu

(Initiated 47 days ago on 9 May 2024) Ratnahastin (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

{{not done}} Ratnahastin; ANI reports that have been archived will not be closed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Restored the request because AirshipJungleman 29 has refused to clarify his above misleading response.[1] Ratnahastin (talk) 04:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Riposte97: time sink

(Initiated 3 days ago on 22 June 2024) Obvious consensus has formed for a community imposed topic ban from "Indigenous peoples of North America, broadly construed". Admin close required. TarnishedPath^talk 09:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Talk:Brothers of Italy#RfC on neo-fascism in info box 3 (Effectively option 4 from RfC2)

(Initiated 78 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: The RfC tag was removed the same day it was started. This should be closed as a discussion, not an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Mukokuseki#RfC on using the wording "stereotypically Western characteristics" in the lead

(Initiated 76 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

See Talk:Mukokuseki#Close Plz 5/21/2024 Orchastrattor (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Climate_change#RFC:_Food_and_health_section

(Initiated 69 days ago on 17 April 2024) This was part of DRN process (Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_245#Climate_change). It is ready to be closed [2] [3]. Bogazicili (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

• (Initiated 54 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
• (Initiated 51 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
• (Initiated 51 days ago on 5 May 2024) Reminder of civility norms at RfA

Many thanks in advance! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

If re-requesting closure at WP:AN isn't necessary, then how about different various closers for cerain section(s)? I don't mind one or two closers for one part or another or more. --George Ho (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 440#RfC: RFE/RL

(Initiated 49 days ago on 7 May 2024) Archived Request for Comment. 73.219.238.21 (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#Discussion -- New Proposal for layout of Tornadoes of YYYY articles

(Initiated 46 days ago on 10 May 2024) RFC outcome is fairly clear (very clear majority consensus), however, a non WikiProject Weather person should close it. I was the RFC proposer, so I am classified too involved to close. There were three “points” in the RFC, and editors supported/opposed the points individually. Point one and three had 3-to-1 consensus’ and point two had a 2-to-1 consensus. Just need a non WP:Weather person to do the closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Yasuke#RfC:_Should_the_view_that_Yasuke_was_a_samurai_be_added_to_the_article

(Initiated 35 days ago on 21 May 2024) It's a bit buried in a header designed to group similar discussions together (because there have been so many of them). I would like to request an experienced or admin closer, as this page has had a lot of new or WP:SPA accounts on it recently, so some more advanced weighting of the consensus here may be necessary. Loki (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period#Early close

(Initiated 26 days ago on 31 May 2024) Since it's an injunctive discussion, I was hoping someone could step in and close after I withdrew my own. Thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Total
CfD	0	0	13	38	51
TfD	0	0	0	12	12
MfD	0	0	0	0	0
FfD	0	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	0	9	21	30
AfD	0	0	0	6	6

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Anti-Normanism#Requested move 22 May 2024

(Initiated 34 days ago on 22 May 2024). Should be closed by an uninvolved admin.--Berig (talk) 07:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Berig, does it really need an admin? Tom B (talk) 04:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

No, that is true. However, as an involved admin and the discussion having been quite lengthy and contentious, I thought it could be appropriate.--Berig (talk) 05:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

After looking at it, I can see why an admin was requested, Tom B (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

(Initiated 29 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Srebrenica massacre#Requested_move_2_June_2024

(Initiated 23 days ago on 2 June 2024), then relisted 10 June, Tom B (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Dani Cavallaro

(Initiated 22 days ago on 4 June 2024) A formal closure would be helpful to solidify consensus for future reference. Thanks! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 8#Kirby Delauter and Draft:Kirby Delauter

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

---

The closer wrote:

There is certainly some support for moving the draft to main space, but I still see endorsing the original deletion (and salting) to be the consensus opinion.

The closer's decision to endorse the original speedy deletion was within discretion and reasonable. I do not contest that part of the close.

The closer erred in assuming that salting was the consensus opinion. Not a single editor in the DRV supported salting. In fact, after Draft:Kirby Delauter was posted, five editors commented favorably about the draft. No one commented negatively against the draft.

Because the draft addressed the undue weight and BLP1E concerns present in the deleted article, the original reasons for speedy deletion no longer applied.

Overturn the salting part of the DRV close and move Draft:Kirby Delauter to Kirby Delauter.

Cunard (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, most of the material in the draft was not really suitable for a BLP -- it's all local coverage. I support the continued salting of the article title for now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• The DRV closer failed to be clear or explicit regarding the salting of the title. Did he overlook it, of did he consider it a question for WP:RFPP? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

It was my estimation that the consensus included salting. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it is true, that consensus supported the salting, the original action and the indefinite continuation, I rather doubt it. In any case, I think you should have said so, and pointed any desires for continued debate on the salting question to WP:RfPP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, the title wasn't salted by the DRV closer, it was salted by the admin who speed-deleted the article in the first place. The DRV was closed as "endorse" which would generally be seen as an endorsement of the close and protection together. Mine was one of the opinions on which the close was based and I can confirm I didn't really consider the issue of salting, in fact the discussion I had with Hobit and Thincat was one about recreation in draft form. The natural next step is for a draft to be moved to main-space. Nonetheless, I did "endorse" the deletion which included salting. RoySmith interpreted my comment (and others) as an endorsement of both and without explicit commentary to the contrary, I'm not sure how he could have done otherwise. It's overly bureaucratic, yes, but I'm with Joe in thinking this should go to WP:RfPP so that the protection can be removed and the draft can be published. Essentially, we all got caught up on the SD/IAR issue and ignored the protection. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yes. Go to WP:RfPP so that the protection can be removed, or not, per the consensus of discussion there. The DRV discussion did not reach a consensus on continued salting, in my opinion, due to lack of direct discussion of that specific question. RoySmith did well enough to make a clear decision on the actual question posed in the nomination. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Absolutely, "removed, or not". St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm with Joe in thinking this should go to WP:RfPP so that the protection can be removed and the draft can be published. – RoySmith insisted that the consensus was to maintain salting despite the new article draft. The suggestion that this should go to WP:RFPP does not make sense because that would be asking an WP:RFPP admin to unilaterally overturn RoySmith's close. Cunard (talk) 06:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Because nobody had specifically addressed the question of whether the protection should remain and so in endorsing the deletion, we were endorsing the protection. Had I (had we all) had the foresight to see it coming, we might have included a line or two ("oh, and un-salt"). We didn't address it and so Roy didn't address it in his close. Self-trout for that one! Post-close, his response makes sense. I don't think that prevents an admin at RFPP reviewing the case and making a determination about protection. I can't imagine anyone would object to them doing so. They are really overturning the original protection (on the basis that it is no longer needed), not Roy's close. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'd rather not start an WP:RFPP post after starting this AN request since that could be viewed as forumshopping. If you or another editor want to make the WP:RFPP post, that would be fine with me. Cunard (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Look, it's quite clear that the only possible policy-based outcomes were to redirect to Frederick County, Maryland#Charter government if the draft didn't meet WP:N (or, say, if BLP1E is applicable), or to allow recreation of the draft if it did meet WP:N. (On this point, I'd rather not take an opinion - this whole affair has been stressful enough for me). But once the blue shield is down, there's nothing to be done except wait until attention has moved on (or the tech bloggers pick it up, and the whole mess becomes too embarassing to the project). WilyD 10:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I was going to stay out of this, but I find the blue shield dig offensive. I have absolutely no problem with the community deciding my close was faulty, and I am glad that this discussion finally got started in an appropriate forum. But I do resent the implication that I'm reflexively defending a fellow admin because of cabalistic loyalty. If you take a look at the DRV archives, I think you'll find that I've handed out more than my fair share of trout. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

If there's an argument to delete rather than have a redirect to Frederick County, Maryland#Charter government (probably the outcome I'd advocate if I weren't already sick of this train-wreck), it wasn't presented during the DRV or in the closing summary. It's a tough DRV to close (and I think you generally do a good job at DRV). But the cumulative effect of endorsing and closing as endorse is exactly how a blue shield works, little misbehaviours/overlooks/blind eyes by everyone to defend their friend/colleague's significant misbehaviour. If the point stings, that's unfortunate, but we can't avoid mentioning our problems because they're painful to deal with - then they only fester. WilyD 10:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Arguments for deletion certainly were presented at the DRV. A redirect is a poor idea since it is possible that Delauter might end up mentioned in another article (SmokeyJoe suggested Streisand effect, for example.) If a reader is typing "Kirby Delauter" in the search box, they would probably prefer a list of articles (if any) that mention him, rather than being shuttled off to a specific one. As for your doubling down on this "blue shield" crap, I have to wonder: if someone closes this thread with no action, will they too be part of the blue shield? Is the only way to avoid a charge of corruption to agree with your opinion of what should happen with the Kirby Delauter page? You seem to have ruled out the possibility that the people who agree with the deletion and salting are doing so in good faith. 28bytes (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Whether it is in good faith (as assumed) is neither here nor there, it is still admins preventing ordinary discussion by the use of tools and confirmation of the use of tools even where the numbers were against it, and the consensus by those who addressed it was not to salt. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, you might be assuming good faith (and if so, I thank you) but my concern is with people who are not, and who are moreover explicitly assuming bad faith and attacking the character of the people who disagree with them. Regardless, I don't see much benefit to be had in continuing to argue with you about whether the DRV close was correct; perhaps we can agree to disagree on that? 28bytes (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I would not think it helpful to read any of that as you do (if you give him the benefit of the doubt ie good faith) statements like "blind eye" "overlook" and even mis behavior could be negligent, not malicious, but mistaken acts (in this case) would still wind up in the same place as intentional acts. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Arguments for deletion rather than having a full article were made at DRV, no arguments were made for deletion rather than redirecting to the only page where the subject is mentioned. (The argument that under different circumstances different choices might make sense is axiomatically true, but invariably irrelevant. WP:RFD sorts out cases with multiple possible targets routinely, and never, ever, ever comes to the conclusion that deletion makes sense.) Reasonable, good faith editors can conclude that the draft/subject meets WP:N, and thus should have an article, or that the sources are mostly local, BLP1E and/or NOTNEWS applies, and thus the article should be redirected to the only page on which he's mentioned (as we would with any other politician who doesn't meet WP:N or its stepchildren). I don't believe that anyone endorsing the decision is acting maliciously, I suspect they're trying to protect their friend from having their misconduct exposed and ignoring that we're ultimately here to write an encyclopaedia. Wanting to protect ones friends is an admirable enough trait, but in this context there's no harm in having your action overturned, so there's nothing to protect them from anyways. WilyD 18:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• When I !voted to overturn the speedy the matter of salting didn't occur to me (it isn't a really a DRV issue anyway). Now I re-read the DRV discussion I can't see anyone saying they supported continued salting though obviously if anyone had been in favour they might not have thought it appropriate or necessary to say so. Interestingly, the last !vote was to endorse the deletion and to allow a new draft. Cunard's draft was presented quite late in the DRV and I think it deserves (and ought to have) community discussion. I don't know the best way of achieving this. Thincat (talk) 13:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
• For the record I endorse both the original deletion and salting, and User:RoySmith's closing of the DRV, for the reasons I offered in the DRV. And I find User:WilyD's "blue shield" remark above (implying that everyone who disagrees with his opinion is corrupt) to be reprehensible and out of character for an editor and admin whom I've otherwise had a good impression of. The fact is, the only reason there's a draft of Kirby Delauter right now is because of a stupid remark he made on Facebook and the reaction to it. That it now contains details about Delauter's family and career as a businessman and local official does nothing to alleviate the fact that he's known for one thing. If, a couple of months from now, people still think this local politician is of lasting notability and therefore merits an encyclopedia biography, I'd be willing to reconsider my position in light of new evidence of that. Perhaps by then tempers will have cooled and there will be less of a desire to make an example of him for his ill-considered remarks. 28bytes (talk) 13:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the admin endorsements of the IAR speedy were well intentioned but they did give a very unfortunate impression which possibly may not be so obvious to war-weary admins. It was not a good idea to have handled a supposedly "textbook" case in a non-textbook manner. If this is the right place for community discussion about the contents of the draft (is it?) I'll give my views. Thincat (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thincat, the proper place for community discussion about the contents of the draft is AfD. In my view, the draft complies with BLP and NPOV (and no one has suggested otherwise), so there is no pressing reason not to move the draft to mainspace and list it at AfD. If, as 28bytes notes, people want to "make an example of him for his ill-considered remarks" in the article itself, the editors can be blocked and the article can be semi-protected or full-protected as necessary. Cunard (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

And in my view, the draft doesn't show why he passes WP:NPOL. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

He doesn't have to pass NPOL if he passes WP:N. And the largest newspaper in the state wrote an editorial about him. That's mighty fine coverage. And coverage unrelated to the "one event". There is massive coverage about the one event. Hobit (talk)

• I reiterate that the salting should be undone and there was no consensus to salt, so overturn. I also think Roy Smith was wrong in his reading. He says correctly that there was not numerical strength to endorse, but ignores that fact that non-admin i-voters could not see the deleted article - so of course we were disabled in offering opinions on whatever was deleted. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

  DRV is not AFD Take 2. We don't need to be able to see the article -- we just need to see if the closing admin read the discussion correctly. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

And he read it wrong: there was no consensus to salt, there was not numerical strength to endorse, and he incorrectly discounted the views of those who could not see the speedy deleted article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

No one requested to see the deleted article. Presumably they'd either already seen it, or felt that their !vote did not depend on what was the article content actually was. I can email you a copy of it if you'd like. 28bytes (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

28bytes, during the discussion, and still, the deleted version remains here), explicitly cited during the discussion. Final version, without attribution of course. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

NB. If it weren't for the speedy deletion, the cached version would carry an AfD notice. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks SmokeyJoe. 28bytes (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I now see, Smokey Joe linked to that cache version without the attribution in the discussion apparently after I participated or I just didn't see it because I took the speedy for BLP at face value that it had a really bad BLP problem, so we should not see it. None of that, however, changes the fact that the consensus was to overturn the salt, and numerically the !vote was not to endorse. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Your point is non-responsive and still supporting overturn - the closer incorrectly discounted the numerically strong views of those who wanted to allow a real attempt to write and judge in the ordinary process an article. The consensus was not to salt by those who addressed it, so he was wrong there too. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. You say the closer "incorrectly discounted the views of those who could not see the speedy deleted article" but you provide no evidence that there was anyone who could not see it and wanted to. Cunard, for example, stated that he had read the article via Google cache. If anyone wanted to see the deleted text, all they had to do was ask. 28bytes (talk) 23:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense and again non-responsive - we could not see the deleted article and so offered no opinion on it - that is exactly what was said at the time but the closer incorrectly took that as somehow endorsing, and the consensus by those who addressed the issue was not to salt. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

You keep saying "non-responsive" like we're in court. What is it exactly that you want me to respond to? 28bytes (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The closer got it wrong - I've offered why I think they got it wrong. I did not ask you to respond at all but if you do, don't go off on how we could see a speedy deleted article, when the very purpose of speedy deletion is for us not to see it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, there are a lot of issues here.
  • The deletion was out of process as was the salting. Neither the speedy nor the salting could be justified by our deletion or protection rules. The bar for endorsing such action should be very high. There is no way that high bar was met.
  • The draft had unanimous support in the discussion of all those that indicated they'd looked at it. I believe 5 people supported it and no one objected. It's hard to understand how a draft with 100% support of everyone who indicated they'd read it could be prevented.
  • The above two issues are related the (out-of-process) deletion meant that there wasn't time to try to fix the article before it was deleted. If we'd followed our regular process, we'd probably still have this article.
  • Not a single person in the discussion indicated why this article was important to speedy out-of-process. IAR should be used when there is a reason to use it, not just because someone feels like it.

Hobit (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• For the record, I think the right way forward is to move the draft to article space and allow an AfD as desired. That's where we'd be if someone hadn't been working outside of process to begin with and that's where we should get to. IMO the draft meets our notability requirement and is well above any speedy criteria--it should get a discussion. Hobit (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
• DRV reviews deletion decisions. Salting is tangential to DRV's scope: we do discuss and review it sometimes but it doesn't always receive the attention that deletion decisions receive, which I think is why this issue wasn't really bottomed out at the DRV. Personally, I think the purpose of salting is to prevent bad faith editors from perenially re-creating material in despite of a consensus. I think the salting should always be removed when a good faith editor wants to create an article in that space.—S Marshall T/C 14:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
• I am not familiar with the intricacies of DRV or salting but I wanted to weigh in here because I have read the draft and feel strongly that it belongs on Wikipedia. It seems that bureaucratic/administrative process is interfering with making an excellent article available. Unless I am missing something, it seems that no one can provide a reason for its exclusion from the main space, other than that this is where the process has ended up. Bangabandhu (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Moving Draft:Kirby Delauter to Kirby Delauter

From WP:RFPP here:

Would an admin unprotect Kirby Delauter and move Draft:Kirby Delauter to Kirby Delauter? See this close of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Review of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 8#Kirby Delauter and Draft:Kirby Delauter by Spartaz (talk · contribs) (thank you, Spartaz, for reviewing and closing the discussion):

This discussion has stalled. As far as I can see there may be disagreement here about whether the article should hae been deleted but there isn't a killer policy based argument that the delete aspect of the DRV as closed was wrong. Where I am seeing a lack of consensus is around whether the salting should have been reinstated. As the salting was part of the original deletion is is certainly in RoySmith's ambit to reinstate this with the endorse finding but, on challenge, we do not have a clear specific consensus. As such, and bearing in mind that DRVs remit is deletion not salting I think the consensus is that reinstating the salting is not an enforcable provision of the DRV close. What does that mean? It means that any admin can unsalt this without needing to see consensus on the point. The only reason I have not done this myself is because there appears to be a risk of BLP issues to consider and I have not got the time right now to research the question to determine if there is a BLP risk from the unsalting. This does not preclude someone who has got that time from doing so.

Cunard (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Not unprotected This should be taken back to DRV; I am not going to override an endorse close there by my own action. Courcelles 19:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I would rather not take this back to WP:DRV for further discussion since this WP:AN close already reviewed the WP:DRV close with the conclusion "the consensus is that reinstating the salting is not an enforcable provision of the DRV close". And "It means that any admin can unsalt this without needing to see consensus on the point" as long as the draft is reviewed by an admin as BLP compliant. Ping User:Courcelles. Cunard (talk) 07:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after this is resolved. Cunard (talk) 07:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• removed the do not archive thing. — Ched :  ?  07:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Restored the do not archive tag. This should not be archived until the consensus to unsalt is carried out. Cunard (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• The unsalting is actually rather irrelevant here, surely the question is whether the draft article is sufficient to overcome the original "delete" arguments even if it is BLP compliant. I personally don't think it is good enough notability-wise - it looks to me like this person's "notability" is hung on a minor news event and a load of local news reports. Black Kite (talk) 08:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Borderline notability means that it should be put through AfD. It easily passes all WP:CSD criteria. There never was a BLP concern, BLP1E is not really a BLP concern, and if there is a BLP concern, it exists in Draft space equally as mainspace. This person is a politician. The salting was a knee-jerk reaction accompanying the out-of-process deletion, and this salting appears to be wholly ignored or unsupported at DRV and here. Courcelles was wrong to ascribe an endorsement of the salting at DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

We don't speedy things to reduce drama. In fact, as this has shown, it just ramps it up. Always has. Hobit (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not often I disagree with you SmokeyJoe, but on few things here I must. Fails WP:NPOL and it's just a drama magnet. Wikipedia is not a social media reporting site, and the only thing of note here is Kirby's brief Facebook rant. Unless or until Mr. Delauter does something notable, then it's best that the article is deleted. Salting removes the temptation of further problems right now. Just IMO, so ...

• Keep deleted and salted — Ched :  ?  10:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Hey Ched, maybe this disagreement can be resolved. We are talking about different things? Deleting for failing WP:NPOL is a matter for the AfD process, and is not a CSD criterion, and failing NPOL does not give admins the right to unilaterally delete contrary to the leading sentence at WP:CSD. For me, this is about respect for process, and vigilance against kneejerk reactions by a ruling class of Wikipedian. Did DRV approve the deletion with silent reference to NPOL? Possibly. If it is agreed, as you say, that this person fails NPOL, and further that there is drama magnetism at play, then yes, "Keep deleted and salted" is the right thing to do. But please, User:Floquenbeam, send it to AfD next time. If this were AfD, I would argue that reliable independent secondary source coverage exists, and the appropriate place for the content is at Streisand_effect#Selected_examples, justified by this. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I can agree with 99.9% of that. The one part I must take exception to is the "knee-jerk". Admins. are supposed to "mop-up" things they see as a mess. In this case it seems more that an admin grabbed the mop and cleaned up a mess before it was reported to the corporate office, and the "please clean" request was filled out in triplicate. Now - I'm wondering if putting Draft:Kirby Delauter up at WP:MFD would help resolve things here? Thoughts? — Ched :  ?  20:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Pre-emptive mopping may be questionable. It could be perceived as "controlling". Anyway, MFDing the Draft might be sensible. MfD might be good at the isolated question of whether the page is a BLP violation. If the question goes to NPOL, I for one will shout "wrong forum", MfD is not the approval court for drafts. Better to unsalt, move to mainspace, and list at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• All very bureaucratic but the varying admins seem to require just that. For the matter to be properly decided by the full editorial community, the draft should be taken to AfD for a proper keep/merge/discharge from draft/delete discussion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
• Meh Why would we immortalise this trivia? Guy (Help!) 22:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
• Good grief, are we really still debating this? Absent a BLP problem, the closer of this at AN (who is one of the most experienced DRV closers btw) said this could be unsalted barring BLP issues. I don't think anyone has identified a BLP problem, potential problem or even an imaginary problem. unsalt and restore if it needs bolding. Folks, this is getting stupid. Let AfD decide if it meets our notability guidelines. This has never been to AfD for goodness sake. Hobit (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I've just realized how long dead this discussion is/was. Anyone object to me taking this to WP:RFP (where it honestly belonged to begin with). Hobit (talk) 23:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Feel free to take this back to WP:RFPP. I did that nearly a month ago but the unprotection request was declined by Courcelles. Cunard (talk) 01:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Ah, I missed that that was at RFPP. He did that after the close at AN? Holy Crazy Bureaucracy run around Batman. This started at DRV. Went to AN to overturn and now needs someone to unsalt so we can have an article so we can have an AfD (I assume). This is insane given that he clearly meets the letter of WP:N and the rest of our content policies/guidelines (the spirit is more up for debate of course). Could the relevant admins please inform the rest of us what the next step is here? Back to DRV? RFPP? Something else? @Spartaz and Courcelles:Hobit (talk) 02:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The next step would be for Cunard to tag the draft as {{db-g7}} so we can finally put to rest the idea that this poor sap deserves to be immortalized in an encyclopedia for saying something stupid one day on Facebook. But that's probably not going to happen, so I guess the other alternative is to keep flogging the dead horse on noticeboard after noticeboard and putting up {{do not archive until}} templates on each thread to prevent this sad episode from ever dying a natural death. 28bytes (talk) 03:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

You know what? If this had been deleted at AfD, that would be the right thing to do at this point. But it wasn't. It was deleted out of process and the topic actually meets our inclusion guidelines. If you don't like those guidelines, change them. But let the community make the call. If you cheat, you shouldn't get away with it. I realize that's a hard lesson for a lot of people to learn. Hobit (talk) 06:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The community has had plenty of opportunity to chime in here. This is not an obscure noticeboard. The fact that this thread has to be constantly propped up by {{do not archive until}} templates because it would otherwise archive without action should tell you that the community has little appetite for having a mainspace article for this man. Nowhere, in any of these discussions, has anyone made a compelling argument that this isn't a case of WP:BLP1E. The only "argument" is that process hasn't been followed, which was already dismissed at the deletion review. An IAR deletion confirmed by a DRV discussion is not "cheating", and shady BLPs are not a game. 28bytes (talk) 06:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The DRV salting was found to be inappropriate in the review (see above). Hobit (talk) 13:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I have now had a look at the draft. Its a classic BLP1E imo. I still feel that DRV has no locus on the unsalting argument but as an individual admin I'm not personally prepared to put my name on this being in article space. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd be happy to put my name on it, the protection just needs to be removed. Hobit (talk) 13:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• I've removed the do not archive. I was going to unsalt but would rather @Floquenbeam: for input first. I'll add my own note that the draft is a significant rewrite from what was deleted, and I think should be allowed to stand on its own at AFD if that's what the community feels is proper at this time. I think there may be enough substance in the draft to be considered as a viable article. — Ched :  ?  07:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• meh Support of unsalting. — Ched :  ?  07:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I've decided that I really don't give a good flying furry rats' ass what happens here. — Ched :  ?  00:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

This has not been to AFD, true, but it has been discussed to death in many places, including being on this noticeboard a couple of times in the last what, month? Longer, surely? The current situation (deleted and salted) is, in my mind, the correct one. The only reason anyone here knows this person exists is because he said something dumb on Facebook one day. If a few people can't let go, then it's up to them to beat this to death, not me. The problem here is not that I skipped AFD (if it was, that would have soon been corrected). The problem here is those who can't let it go when things don't go their way. I have said from day one that if any admin thinks any decision I made is wrong, they are welcome to undo it. So far, no one has. If that changes and things don't end up going my way, I'm not going to spend the next few months starting multiple noticeboard threads. But it is not my responsibility to undo something I've done, that I've fully explained several times, that I still think is right, that was upheld by review at DRV and here, and that no other admin has yet reverted in spite of my invitation to do so if they think it's right. Please do not ping me anymore on this, there it nothing more I have to say. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• For those of us who regularly deny that admins are super editors, it would be good if admins did not act as super editors, as they have in the case of this salting. @Spartaz: it would be good if you finished the mopping job you started and unsalt this - that is why you have the mop - putting your name on mopping? Really? Salting for this subject is highly inappropriate, whether you believe there should be an article or a redirect or no article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Unsalt. What we have here is two groups of editors, both acting in good faith. One group believes that this article should be included, and the other doesn't. I hope that everyone can agree than neither position is absolutely pants-on-head crazy - it's a garden-variety content dispute. The trouble is, some members of the exclusion advocacy group happens to have some extra clicky buttons that members of the inclusion advocacy group lack. The fact that members of the exclusion group are wielding their clicky buttons to advance their position in a content dispute - however well-intentioned - is distressing to good-faith editors who are somewhat lacking in the clicky button department.

Those editors entrusted with clickly buttons must be very careful not to alienate those editors without. The kindest way to handle this is to unsalt the article, and utilize normal deletion processes available to all editors if you feel that the article should be deleted. HiDrNick! 14:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Unsalt Basically, we're penalizing this article unfairly. Wikipedia doesn't want to create an article based on one silly statement, which is reasonable. But if this article were just about a local representative, it would probably be included, or at a minimum, considered. So because he's made those extreme comments that means the article can't be considered? Please unsalt, so we can consider the page on its merits. The draft does not give undue weight to his remarks, or at least does not give enough weight that we shouldn't consider it. Bangabandhu (talk) 15:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I do not care about Kirby Delauter. I agree with Floquenbeam that it's unlikely he's notable enough to merit an article. He's not sufficiently important (notable).
Wikipedia, on the other hand, is important. Since it doesn't write itself, logically the folks who write it (e.g. Cunard, Hobit, Stalwart, SmokeyJoe, Thincat, et. al. sorry if I missed you) are. I have no problem with Floquenbeam's attempt to reduce unnecessary churning by IAR deleting it in the first place, but as one of the smarter Hobbits once said, Short cuts make long delays, as this exceptionally long AN thread demonstrates. IAR is "ignore a rule when doing so improves the encyclopedia," not "ignore a rule because I know I'm right and it will end up deleted in the end." Once any editor who is not an obvious troll makes a good faith request to revert the IAR deletion so that those so inclined can make the content argument -- remember the "admins don't make content decisions" meme? -- it should be unsalted, the article restored, taken to Afd etc. etc. So is there not one admin left who's willing to do the right thing and unsalt -- not because Floquenbeam was wrong in the first place, not because you think the article will survice Afd, but simply out of courtesy and respect to the good faith editors who wish to press their case in the appropriate forum, which ain't here? NE "Diogenes" Ent 16:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

A very stirring speech, NE. Of course, it would have been equally stirring if you'd swapped out Kirby Delauter for Eric Ely, or Brian Peppers, or the Grape Lady. I do not care about Kirby Delauter — well, you're not alone there, at least! Lots of people don't care about our article subjects. But what everyone should care about is not demeaning ourselves as an encyclopedia by including the subject of every flash-in-the-pan "viral" news cycle, especially not to make an example of him^[ 1] for seeming to not understand how the First Amendment works. It's beneath us to host in mainspace something we know is a case of WP:BLP1E just to allow people to have another week arguing about it at AfD when they've already had months debating it here and at DRV. So no, it's very much the wrong thing to do to cave into these demands, which is why every admin who has come by here and tentatively said "yeah, let's unsalt it" has backed away from that once they've seen what this is actually about. You're right that you'll probably be able to find one who unsalts it eventually, because we have hundreds of admins and not all of them will actually look at the situation before trying to "help". But it sure won't be a proud moment for the encyclopedia when they do. 28bytes (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

No. We don't demean anything or anyone by allowing editors write a full biography on an undisputed public figure, and following editorial process to get rid of it should it need to be. What you do demean is editors by admin action such as this. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• Looks like, for the 3rd discussion in a row, we have a significant majority who favor unsalting... Hobit (talk) 12:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
• Every month or so I find myself popping in to say I think the community should have an opportunity to discuss whether we should have an article on this topic. So far we haven't been given a chance (though some have given their opinion anyway). It seems to me that only some admins had behaved honourably over all this. Thincat (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Review of non-admin closure at Manual of Style/Icons

Would an uninvolved admin please be so kind as to peruse the discussion at WT:Manual_of_Style/Icons#The previous Formula One "consensus" and an editor's odd interpretation of it and review the Non-admin closure that has precipitated the confusion? The contested change has been made three times and reverted twice and there appears to be confusion as to the breadth of the result of the original consensus and the ambiguity left in the closing statement by the non-admin closer. Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Paging @Technical 13:. I don't see any issues with the close, personally. Those who are edit warring against the consensus found in the most recent discussion should, as usual, take it to the talk page. HiDrNick! 17:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• HiDrNick, please see User talk:Technical 13/2014/4#Non-neutral non-admin close for my thoughts on it. I'll happily review the new discussions when I have some time, about to head to class for 4 hours. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 17:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not criticizing Technical 13 - in fact I haven't participated in this RFC/discussion at all. It's just that some editors are construing the results of the proposal and !vote more/less broadly than others... The original "Formal poll" asked for editors to be "stating an opinion based on policy or guidelines in favour of or opposed to the use of flags to represent a driver's or team's nation in Formula 1 articles". Some editors (and the contested edit to the MOS) are taking the close to apply to areas other than Formula 1. Clarification and rationale would be helpful. If people are happy with Technical 13 making the clarification, that's fine with me – I don't have a dog in this hunt (my peeve is flag icons w/o the name/abbreviation of the nation, but that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish). I just felt the opinion of an uninvolved admin might shut everyone up so we can all get back to editing. Mojoworker (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Pinging User:SMcCandlish who contested the close in December at User talk:Technical 13/2014/4#Non-neutral non-admin close. Cunard (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I think that the close is over-broad in its interpretation. It appears to make a general statement about sports generally when the discussion was about Forumula One racing in particular, and the conclusion reached actually contradicts years worth of previous consensus discussions. Basically, the F1 editors lobbied very hard to get their way on this, and people who also really, really, really like flag icons are trying to misconstrue the questionable result of that one discussion as an overruling of something like 5 years of previous decisions against festooning articles with cutesy pictures.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Please stop adding these tags and clogging up the page. Allow threads to die a natural death, if that's what they're going to do.. Not everything needs a formal closeure. BMK (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

How about we post a comment here everyday until someone responds – that should keep it from getting archived. Seems clear that @Technical 13: has decided not to clarify his close (despite a cordial reminder on his talk page), so the ambiguity remains. I guess there really aren't enough admins to go around. Is it any wonder we're losing editors? I posted this here when a nascent edit war was developing. Wisely, @Jojhutton: reverted only twice. But, if this is archived without clarification from technical 13 or an uninvolved admin, it raises the additional question of what to do about the edit to MOS:ICON – should it be reverted to the status quo ante or left as is? Mojoworker (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• I haven't decided to do or not do anything. My ex's 60+ year old father slipped on some ice in a store parking lot last weekend, broke three ribs, punctured a lung, went in for multiple operations to fix it, and has been in ICU half the week. Clarifying my close on a topic on Wikipedia has been at the very, very bottom of my todo list. I'll get to it in the next week or two when my mind has a minute to regroup and I apologize if I seem brash or uncaring, but in comparison to what I'm dealing with in RL atm, I really don't care. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 21:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

No worries Technical 13. Quite understandable given your circumstances. Sorry if my frustration was leaking through into my post. Sadly, an admin could clear this up forthwith, leaving you to care for your family. Guess there are just too few admins. Or too many lazy ones? At least too few that will do anything that requires a little work. Someone on Dennis Brown's talkpage was talking about redirecting Chicken shit to ANI – I guess AN would be just as appropriate. If we can't come here for assistance, then WTF are we supposed to do? I realize admins are volunteers too, but if y'all aren't gonna do anything, then turn in your bits and let someone else do it. Anyway, take your time Technical 13, my gripe is not with you. Mojoworker (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Anyone can run for admin any time they want, you know Mojoworker, there's no need for anyone to resign and open up a vacancy ;-) Squinge (talk) 12:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

In answer to Mojoworker's question, the default is always to revert to status quo ante. This non-admin closure has obviously been controverted, so there is no actual consensus on the issue at the heart of the discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Pinging while blocked

When an editor has been blocked for an infraction, should that editor be using the ping feature (or similar) to send messages to other editors intended to influence discussion of article content? Seems to me this would be inconsistent with the notion of being blocked. Perhaps the issue has been discussed before; if so my apologies for taking people's time here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if an editor has been blocked for something, their talk page is not to be used for anything except requesting an unblock. Pinging people to influence an article discussion is effectively looking for, at best, proxies, or, at worst, meatpuppets and is a form of canvassing. Blackmane (talk) 00:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I've often seen blocked users use their talk pages in beneficial ways, ranging from "I found vandalism here; please fix it" to writing a message for the blocking admin. In particular, when blocking people whom I think might be constructive users (especially simple non-abusive username violations), I've specifically suggested that they ping me if they reply. Modifying the software or modifying relevant policies would be bad ideas, since there are constructive ways of using this feature when blocked; we ought to treat it like any other kind of talk page communication, permitting it unless the person gets to the point of having talk page access revoked. Nyttend (talk) 01:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, okay -- but what do we do if it's just run-of-the-mill attempts to carry on editing even though blocked? Nothing? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you meaning something like @Nomoskedasticity:, please uncapitalize "Individual" and the first "Team" in Nils Stolzlechner? Depends if it's productive; if we benefit, good; if we don't, bad. If it's good, or if it's just a few bad ones, no big deal. All that matters is that the encyclopedia be improved; aside from outright abuse (e.g. "NOMOSKEDACITY YOU ARE A *****") or other stuff that we're all prohibited from doing, the worst that can happen is wasting other people's time. If the pinging is wasting people's time, we should warn and eventually shut down talk page access, but if it's helping, we shouldn't object at all. Nyttend (talk) 02:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

"Blocked", then, doesn't mean what it used to. It's almost as if one is now able to edit article talk-pages while blocked. That's a change from past practice, and I'm not aware that it has been adopted as such. And of course different people have different notions of what counts as "helping". But it doesn't seem that concern about this issue is widespread. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Remember blocks aren't punitive. They're supposed to stop disruption to the encyclopedia. If a user is suggesting good, sensible, changes on their talk page I don't see an issue with that. Sam Walton (talk) 13:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Blackmane is wrong. NE Ent 23:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I've actually wondered about this recently as well though. I thought Blackmane's stance was the generally accepted one, but I couldn't find where exactly it was cited, so it's not something I've personally enforced. This might be a good thing to clarify... Sergecross73 msg me 13:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, I too had thought that my view was the typical view and have seen a number of times in the past while browsing unblock requests at CAT:RFU where admins have revoked talk page access when it was obvious the user was not seeking to be blocked but was either pinging other editors or leaving messages on their talk page in the expectation that others who have watch listed their talk page will make the edit. Of course, this would be based on the admin's assessment and discretion, but I'd seen it enough times to get the feeling that this was standard practice. I'll have to go do some digging. Blackmane (talk) 01:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd say it's a pretty indeterminate area. Using the talk page to harass other editors is definitely not okay, and pinging could be used in a harassing manner. It also would be worth looking at if the editor was using the ping feature for canvassing in order to continue an edit war that led to the block in the first place. Otherwise, I'd say it should be considered on a case-by-case basis, especially in light of the length of the block. I'd also suggest that the concept of proxying has little meaning in the context of a block rather than a ban; canvassing would be the more pressing concern in general. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

−

(edit conflict)It's not uncommon, but it's not policy. As the replies here show, there's no consensus. I have previously raised the pinging issue at Wikipedia_talk:Notifications/Archive_6#Blocked_users_pinging but the conversation didn't go very far. NE Ent 01:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

This lowly regular ed thinks pinging is fine, provided its so unquestionably open and broad there is no hint of WP:CANVASSING. If the blocked ed is picking and choosing, that should be considered canvassing unless they can show they blanketed all participants in some prior discussion regardless of their stance. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Closure Review Request at MOS page

About three weeks ago, I closed an RFC at WT:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#RfC:_Comma_or_no_comma_before_Jr._and_Sr.

I concluded that there was consensus that, while both forms (with and without the comma) are acceptable, the omission of the comma is preferred, partly because the rules about punctuation following the suffix, if there was a comma, are complicated. I concluded that no change was needed to WP:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#RfC:_Comma_or_no_comma_before_Jr._and_Sr.. On the one hand, my close hasn’t been challenged in the usual sense, but, on the other hand, I have been asked to clarify, and it appears that there are low-grade personal attacks. The real question appears to be whether the use of the comma is permitted, and, if so, when. (I have an opinion, but it doesn’t count, because I was only closing, and, if I had expressed an opinion, that would have involved me.) So I am asking closure review on three points. First, was my closure correct, either a clear statement of consensus or a valid assessment of consensus? Second, are there any issues that should have been addressed that were overlooked? Third, is administrative attention needed because of snark and low-grade personal attacks?

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Some of these are easier than others.

I honestly would never, ever, have closed that thing. While the use of a comma isn't all that important, an outcome that changes the name of something or someone to something that isn't generally used violates other, more common, guidelines and is thus highly problematic and certainly shouldn't be decided by a handful of people at a MOS talk page. That said, the clear outcome was to prohibit the comma. So yeah, I don't think your close summarizes the discussion. This kind of addresses both your first and second question.

The personal attacks thing is a lot easier. I'd say there are no meaningful personal attacks, at least not on that page (I didn't look elsewhere). In fact, I'd call it downright civil for a MOS discussion.

If someone held a gun to my head and made me close this thing, I'd go with "while this seems to be the right venue, a wider set of thoughts should be gathered, take this to WP:VPR or WP:MOS instead" Hobit (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I probably contributed to the confusion by implementing the proposed change in the MOS after I grew impatient of getting anyone to close to the obvious consensus, and then I didn't notice that DrKiernan changed the MOS wording again; when Robert McClenon finally closed it, it had DrKiernan's wording, not the one that we had voted on, and he noted that no change was needed; I didn't notice until today that that had happened. So now we're arguing over his version or mine. My wording (the one we supported in the RFC) is the somewhat more prescriptive "Do not place a comma before ...", while DrKiernana's "It is unnecessary to place a comma before ..." is more permissive, which has brought up arguments at new RM discussions: Talk:Samuel Goldwyn, Jr. § Requested move 1 March 2015 and Talk:John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway § Requested move 2 March 2015. See more at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Clarification_on_wording. Dicklyon (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the right place to request this... but the debate about whether to allow commas before Jr. or Sr. seems to be spiraling out of control, with multiple discussions happening on multiple pages (it is being discussed on individual article talk pages and RMs, at the main MOS page and at MOS/Biographies). Reading those discussions, I think we risk ending up with conflicting consensuses (a consensus in favor of allowing the commas at one discussion, and a consensus in favor of not allowing them at another). It would be very helpful to have one centralized discussion on the issue. Blueboar (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Where should the centralized discussion be? User:EdJohnston suggested that another RFC be opened at MOS/Biographies. Individual article talk pages are obviously not the place for the discussion. Can a centralized place be selected and the other discussions closed? (Alternatively, do we just want to go on with multiple uncoordinated discussions?) Robert McClenon (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: The village pump is the place for centralised discussion of changing Wikipedia policies and guidelines, as it is well-watched and open to editors who are not MoS acolytes. Please use WP:VP/P. RGloucester — ☎ 21:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Just to point out that several of those discussions are requested moves (either following reverts or requiring moves over redirects) which are being disputed because of the disputed wording at WP:JR (and its application to various titles).[4][5][6][7] —sroc 💬 05:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

By the way, the section originally came in, in 2009, by BD2412, in this edit. It read: The use of a comma before Jr. and Sr. has disappeared in modern times, while the use of a comma before a Roman numeral as part of a name (II, III, IV, etc.) has never been accepted. Neither article names nor headers should include a comma before a Jr., Sr., or Roman numeral designation, unless it can be demonstrated that this is the preferred arrangement by the subject or the subject's biographers. Since that time there have been various minor mods. Sammy Davis Jr. was added as an example of no comma, and then in 2013 in this edit he was converted to an example of "unless it is the preference of the subject or the subject's biographers" in spite of evidence to the contrary. As far as I know, nobody has ever found a way to satisfy the proposed idea of "demonstrated that this is the preferred arrangement by the subject or the subject's biographers", which is part of the reason that a consensus was formed to remove it. Nobody has ever advanced an example of a name where it can be "demonstrated that this is the preferred arrangement by the subject or the subject's biographers". It's kind of crazy to let sources vote when we have settled on a style that makes sense for Wikipedia. Dicklyon (talk) 05:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that we haven't actually settled on a style. Both the "with comma" viewpoint and the "without comma" viewpoint have ardent adherents in discussions, but neither viewpoint has actually gained a clear consensus. Blueboar (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Blueboar's comment misrepresents the original position and the discussion in the RfC. The original wording was already to default to "no commas" (i.e., the preferred style); the proposal was simply to remove the exception based on the subject's preference, which a majority favoured based on reasons enumerated there. There were no "ardent adherents" for the "with comma" camp (this was never actually proposed), although some suggested that either might be acceptable or that the subject's preference should be decisive. The change Dicklyon made reflected the proposal; the words DrKiernan added changed the meaning in a way that was not discussed and had not attained consensus. —sroc 💬 12:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Lucia Black Topic Ban Review

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

---

Friends and colleagues, on August 19, 2014, I imposed a topic ban on Lucia Black, restricting her from participation in all Japanese entertainment-related topics, broadly construed per this thread. In my closure, I commented: "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." Lucia has previously been banned from filing reports at administrative noticeboards, so she approached me a few weeks ago about modifying the ban, as she has no interest in contributing to alternate content areas. I am aware of the great trouble that many editors have experienced with Lucia over the years, but even the most ardent opposition to her editing concede that she has the capability to make productive content contributions. Consequently, in the spirit of second chances, reconciliation, and content development, I propose the following modification, which seeks to assuage the concerns of those who have dealt with Lucia in the past, and provide a path forward for Lucia to contribute: Lucia Black is indefinitely banned from editing articles related to Japanese video games broadly construed. Moreover, she is restricted from interacting with the following editors with whom she has previously had disagreements and who supported further sanctions six months ago via a one-way interaction ban: Sergecross73, Salvidrim!, Ryulong, Hasteur, Mendaliv (note: any of these editors may request to be removed from the interaction ban at any time for any reason). To be honest, this is the best path forward of which I can think at the present juncture, but I am open to other suggestions and civil discussion. Thank you all in advance for discussing this topic in an intelligent, measured, and civilized manner. Go Phightins! 21:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I've no issues with Lucia and don't wish to be involved in a TBAN. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Removed you. I was only judging based on comments in the previous discussion, not being overtly familiar with the topic area. If you have any substantive comments on the concept, I would love to hear them. Go Phightins! 21:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the thought, but I really never interacted with Lucia outside of ANI, and don't need an interaction ban. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Clarification request: Does this mean that she may edit on Japanese entertainment other than video games? Is my parsing correct? Is she interested in editing on Japanese entertainment other than video games? Also, will she still be restricted from interaction with a banned user? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

She has repeatedly commented that the ban was too broad for her to contribute to anything in her interests; she is also interested in comic books, literature and some other non-video game cultural items, I do believe. I only included Ryulong should he be reinstated at some point. And Mendaliv, I will remove you as well. Go Phightins! 22:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

My concern is that she continued to complain and not "get it" regarding the topic ban a half year after it happened. Even still I feel a strong WP:IDHT vibe... Sergecross73 msg me 01:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

After reading the January 12, 2015 comment linked to directly above, I share Sergecross73's concerns. I recommend that LuciaBlack edit productively and collaboratively for six months outside the area of the topic ban. Surely, there are a few of our 4.7 million articles outside this topic area that she can help with. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Her behavior is concerning, and my interactions with her have been mostly negative. If I remembered right, her debating skills results in walls of text and conflicts. If she was limited in her privilege to debate on "big things", she'd be less problematic; she is perfectly behaved in articles no other editors take up. If possible, I may also consider an interaction ban with her though. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 01:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I should clarify along with this that my suggestion that I don't need a tailored one-way interaction ban with her doesn't mean that I think the topic ban should be lifted. Cullen's suggestion is a wise one. If Lucia hasn't put forth serious efforts in trying to edit outside of banned areas, I don't know why lifting it on anything but a time-limited test basis is even being considered. When you've shown that you can't edit collaboratively in an area, as Lucia had shown in that prior case, there's a burden to be overcome before the ability to edit in that area should be restored. I mean, come on, there has to be something. I've even seen experience editing collaboratively on high-traffic Wikia wikis considered when lifting a siteban before. If Lucia is actually incapable of editing outside of this one narrow topic area (despite the breadth of phrasing, the topic ban does not preclude editing of most articles) or outside of English Wikipedia, I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell of removing the topic ban being successful. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Cullen's suggestion is wise ... except that she rightly asserts "Japanese culture" is a broad topic, so there legitimately might be nothing else on which she would enjoy working. If I was banned from editing anything related to American culture, that would encompass all of my editing interests too. My proposal here essentially allows for Cullen's end state, though ... video games were the root of the problem, and she would remain banned from editing articles about them, but would be allowed to edit other articles on Japanese culture, be they literature or whatever, provided she does not interact with editors who have previously had issues with her -- essentially, don't disrupt people, but prove yourself before we lift the ban completely. Go Phightins! 02:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Ryulong is currently indef blocked per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate, fwiw. --MASEM (t) 02:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• I am aware. Only included him as there was previously conflict. Go Phightins! 02:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose lifting as suggested; overly complicated remedies are more trouble than they're worth. (It's a bit absurd to be talking about a one-way interaction ban with an indef'd editor.) I prefer Lucia's suggestion [8] better; lift the ban and if the problems recur simply site ban her. NE Ent 02:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I would too, but anticipating there would not be consensus for that, I sought to come up with something that, though somewhat complicated, might be a workable compromise. Go Phightins! 02:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - per WP:IDHT, and my dif above. Sergecross73 msg me 02:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting current ban While i have great respect for Go Phightins! and his concern for "second chances, reconciliation, and content development", i would note that second chances have been offered to this editor and declined previously, reconciliation is not something she indicates she is interested in, and content development is only of interest on her terms. I remember several blow-ups involving Lucia, including the one(s) which resulted in the current ban. I have looked at her contributions since that time to see if she has shown any signs of understanding and taking to heart what she was told; briefly: None. Her most recent mainspace contribution was 26 September, 2014, over five months ago. As Mendaliv says above, surely there is something she could have done in that time? Even a bit of gnoming, correcting spelling or formatting, something? Instead, every single contribution i looked at revolved around the correction of the injustice perpetrated by the community. Without any sign of self-awareness or willingness to live within the community's standards, i recommend Go Phightins! return to Lucia and suggest to her she pay attention to what the community wants to see from her. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 03:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment@Mendaliv:/@Cullen328:/@LindsayH: I've attempted time and time again, but it comes to the point that my edits don't stick, i go back and try to start over with the edits and its a vicious cycle of not pressing the "save page" button. The most I've done were GANs of others, and making heavily minor edits and reconstructing. But those are incredibly minor. I don't feel like i'm making any contribution at all. For the record though, iv'e done plenty of edits in wikia. But that rarely proves much. And typos, i literally have to look for those articles. But honestly, i dont think it really matters. Do you genuinely believe this will solve things for good? Or are you hoping that this is just a temporary resolution that will backfire until i get sitebanned for good?

@Sergecross73: You mention WP:IDHT, which is incredibly vague to what it applies to most (it appears to be mostly article space, not editors). When you say things such as refusal to "get it". These things are heavily insulting. Yet, when i ask for more clarity on the situation or when i ask for answers, i receive no response whatsoever from the very person accusing it. I get ignored, and what good does that to me and my progress in Wikipedia? It provides no self esteem, nor does it even give any motivation to continue editing at all when there's this type of community to look forward to.

@DragonZero: Your proposition is too convenient to benefit you specifically. Proposing something "big" shouldn't be a legitimate issue. The problem is that I've proposed things in the past in WP:ANIME and it has indeed accepted it to a significant degree. It even affected one of the articles you were concerned about when the structuring had to get reverted (with consensus). You're proposition literally is saying to make no positive contribution to any areas where you feel against. Lucia Black (talk) 04:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks like I need to simplify this. I was trying to propose a third solution. Return, but be restricted from debates. Your current outlooks right now are status quo, and the proposer's options which does not seem to be passing at the moment. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

restricted from debates isn't a problem. its about proposing something "big". But then again, the exact same opposers return. its not the debates that are the problem, its the avalanche that occurs only in WP:AN. i'm constantly getting called out. I would love it if other editors received the same standard they place on me in WP:AN.

Support i'm working part-time, going to school full-time. I have even less time then before to edit. The ban is indeed broader than those make it out to be. Mainly because you may all have bigger interests in Wikipedia. Heck you're interest may not be any topic at all, it may just be wikipedia in general. Me? i edit to promote a topic intellectually that i'm interested.But when things have boiled over not because of actions, but because of history, it gets to the point where no editor is truly looking for a resolution that will make everyone happy and allow me to continue to edit. I'm looking for a final, permanent, resolution.

This current proposal speaks volume. More than the current topic ban i'm in. I know some of you who are opposing this current proposal know that editing elsewhere six months of minor edits wont fix "me". This second chance doesn't come with rehabilitation, it doesn't avoid the future problem that will eventually come back. I want to prove something, and here this proposal comes up, and it is the perfect chance to actually see in my own element, and what kind of editor i really am. WP:AN is only a fraction of it all. its not what makes me a good or bad editor, yet WP:AN is the sole reason i'm at where i'm at, and the opposers recognize this.

This current proposal, allows me to prove so much more than the one i'm under now. Other wise, i request a site ban under my terms because i literally do not have time to dedicate an area where i'm not interested in, and i don't have a good standing with the current group that provided this consensus (and no, this current consensus does not speak for all WP:AN, it only speaks for one group). All i ask is to allow this proposal to prove what I've been trying to prove all along. if it fails, i lose more than you know. If it is proven successful, it shows a lot more than six months of tiny edits elsewhere. Lucia Black (talk) 05:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Strong oppose As LindsayH points out, Lucia, you haven't made a mainspace contribution in five months. How is anybody supposed to assess that you're ready to edit within that topic area again? I don't have a crystal ball. That's just how topic bans work. The burden is on you to demonstrate that you are able to edit in the topic area from which you were banned, and pretty much the only way you can satisfactorily do so is by showing a pattern of editing since the topic ban took effect that you're capable of editing in a collaborative environment. Even if I assume you are physically incapable of editing outside of the topic area from which you were banned, I've personally laid out several options. You could show you edited collaboratively on some other wiki, whether it's another language variant of Wikipedia, or Commons, or Wiktionary, Wikibooks, Wikidata, or even on a Wikia wiki. Another option might be a temporary lifting; let you edit in the topic area for six to twelve weeks, with the topic ban automatically reinstating at the end unless there's consensus to lift the topic ban. But let's be honest: You are physically capable of editing in another topic area. I'm going to be frank: If you can't push yourself to edit in another topic area, something that all productive Wikipedia editors use as a means of stepping away from a dispute, what are you going to do when you hit your first dispute after the topic ban has been lifted? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• • To answer your question Mendaliv. Editors do indeed leave a certain article and work on another when there is a dispute that can't be resolved. I've walked away from the same dispute dozens of times at this point (which is the majority of my history here in WP:AN). Constantly comes back and it never gets resolved by the same editors who have been here before and were also questioned. WP:ANIME recognizes all of this, other editors outside WP:ANIME recognize this aswell. When it came to finally resolving it, finally giving it the attention it needed, it was broadly construed. However your question is what happens when there's a dispute? i resolve it with help of the community. if it can't be resolved, then i go to another article. You're trying to justify moving from another article to moving from another topic. Editors still move to another area within their own means, and their own interests, and especially in their own time. I'm not banned from one article, or a group of articles relating to a single topic, i'm banned from a large array of articles regarding media, specifically relating to Japanese media. It is not controlled by media, by series, or even by the same Wikiproject. It involves multiple mediums, all regarding a culture i am very passionate about. Back then, if there was a disputed problem, i look for another that i'm interested and go to it, and improve it to the point that it was at least considered "c-class". But of course, all within comfort of having the choice to edit the articles i'm in. But again, regardless of that being your concerned, the topic ban isn't related to the issue in the first place.

And like i said i have made contributions to Wikia. i've made edits in several areas. Lucia Black (talk) 06:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

That's interesting, but we need to see progress since the topic ban was put in place. To put it another way, show me the edits. The ideal is to see you editing and discussing collaboratively with people despite having a disagreement with them. Show us that happening anywhere since the topic ban. I can't say I'll flip on my oppose, but I'm not going to ignore honest-to-goodness progress if you've made it. All I'm saying is that your conduct since the topic ban, as far as I've seen, does not inspire confidence. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, formalizing my earlier comment. There are millions of articles here that have nothing to do with Japanese culture, entertainment, comics, anime and manga. Go edit productively and collaboratively outside the area of your topic ban, then come back in six months and explain convincingly how you understand that you screwed up, and why you will never, ever do it again. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@Mendaliv:No one ever mentioned wikimedia, wikicommons, or even wiktionary were viable areas. So how can i ever believed that wikia was a viable option in the first place? I've been editing without a user name. mainly because the majority of my edits were cleaning up typos, flamboyant dialogue, and misinformation. I wasn't adding ground breaking content to take credit off them. if i show you my edits in those areas, i will be revealing my IP address, which i do not want to happen anytime. All i can say is that I've been editing on Final Fantasy Wikia, Kingdom Hearts Wikia, and Legend of Zelda Wikia.

And i understand those sound convenient for me to say, but for the longest time i believed Wikia was independent from Wikipedia in every way. therefore, that was the only place i can breach this topic ban because it wasn't within Wikipedia's jurisdiction. So i don't gain anything from saying that i worked in wikia. because that's easy. REGARDLESS, if you need proof that i can work with editors, then definitely I've proven it long ago. For example: here, even under pressure of a full siteban from the same editor who proposed it, i still discussed things constructively. And made sure i revealed proper information and not take it personally. Lucia Black (talk) 07:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Because of how things came about, i can't say what you would like me to say, and i promise it wont be said six months from now. The way things came about to get this topic ban, was "broadly construed". Which means, the motive behind it, the reason behind it, the consensus behind it was "construed". if this was as solid as rock, if this was 90% of the entire community that i had ever had an encounter with outside WP:AN. Then yes, i would find away to say those words. But unfortunately, a community actually agrees with me. Lucia Black (talk) 07:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

You know, I keep giving you ways out but you keep slapping the olive branch out of my hand. I want proof that you have edited collaboratively on any project since the topic ban took place. You've persistently refused to provide the proof to support your claims that you've done so. And now, you're linking to one of the very discussions that led to your topic ban? Be serious. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support Its been almost 6 months and this has amounted to almost like a block for her not editing in the mainspace. Phightins, you can remove Ryulong as he has been banned by arbcom. I do not see why Lucia needs to continue having this ban imposed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 11:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support lifting of TBan The Tban has had the affect of being a full ban from Wikipedia. Many editors from WP:ANIME pointed this out during the original discussion nor did anyone from that WikiProject support the original ban. LB has been able to work with other editors in this topic area with only a couple of exceptions—Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri. Both of which are as strong headed as she can be, but did not receive any sanctions for their conduct in this topic area. —Farix (t | c) 11:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Lucia Black, to clarify, my objection is this: Last August, you were given the ban due to your inability to discuss constructively with others. So what did you do after you're banned from your content areas? You hounded a related user for months on the subject. And Thibbs isn't an Admin or the person who closed the ban discussions, just a random participant who didn't agree with you. The extremely long winded rants here and here are exactly what I find so troubling. Even in the time of your ban was in effect, you still had long disruptive discussions that showed that you still don't understand why the ban was put into effect. Sergecross73 msg me 12:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
• No LB has known for a long time what they needed to do in order to regain the community's trust. The repeated "It's someone else's fault" coupled with repeated attempts to move the goal line closer indicates that LB still doesn't see the problem with their actions. The never ending ranbling arugments that bring in anything that might have a hope of overturning the sentiment against them clearly shows that they miss things like brevity. Hasteur (talk) 19:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment- I did not support the topic ban or the dubious way it was enacted. It is unnecessarily broad in scope. I support overturning it. However, it's clear that there is not going to be consensus for that. The reality is that people think you're argumentative and don't collaborate well with others. Your long, repetitious, impassioned pleas will not persuade these people to change their minds- quite the opposite, in fact. I think you are out of options for the time being, and I think you will have to edit other areas of the encyclopedia if you want to get back to editing your favourite areas. Take the opportunity to expand your knowledge. The way you are carrying on right now is only making things worse for yourself. Reyk _YO! 20:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Have any replies here been from uninvolved parties? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't consider myself involved. NE Ent 23:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not involved either. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I haven't commented on this issue before, so I'm definitely uninvolved. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 01:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Point taken, good to see some new faces here. I want to add though that so far three members including myself that are involved in the anime and manga project have voiced support for the removal of the topic ban, is there a way to narrow the scope of the ban? I have a hard time believing that Lucia was ever disruptive in every area. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

  For the record, i don't consider myself involved either; though i commented once or twice at AN or ANI, i have no editing involvement with Lucia or the area of the topic ban. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 09:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• I guess I'll support this, as if a topic ban is so overly broad that it encompasses everything on Wikipedia you're actually interested in editing, then it may as well be a site ban as you're unlikely to continue to bother editing at all. Reducing the scope of the topic ban doesn't hurt, gives Lucia a reason to remain on Wikipedia, and if she (supposedly) violates these terms, she'll just get re-blocked and no harm would be done. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 01:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• (Involved) Comment - I can't support this proposal, but I'll refrain from actually opposing and instead leave it in the hands of the community. My original (circa Aug 2014) thoughts about the best way to apply sanctions in this case are actually quite close to the current proposal but in the intervening months my concerns have grown. Specifically I'm concerned by Lucia's continued insistence that she doesn't understand her prior blocks, her suggestions that they were largely unjustified, and her evident preference for arguments and promises over demonstrations of ability. She has both good and bad characteristics, but I can't in good conscience support a request to restore her privileges without a demonstration that she can handle them collegially. -Thibbs (talk) 13:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose revision of topic ban at this time. As has been pointed out, there are millions of articles outside the topic needing attention. Turn some attention to those and use them to hone your editing skills with a focus on the product rather than the topic. Fix typos, grammar errors, disambiguation links, bare URLs, and the like. At a higher level, find underserved articles and figure out what improvements are needed to make them good. You can find a dozen articles needing such world merely by clicking "random article". There are also entire projects dedicated to fixing particular classes of errors. We also have many categories of missing topics. Try filling in some of the blanks for missing woman scientists, for example. bd2412 T 14:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support - I previously proposed that the topic ban be rescinded, but there wasn't a consensus to do that at the time. I still think Lucia Black was making good contributions to anime and manga articles, and wasn't causing significant problems on anime and manga articles outside of Ghost in the Shell and related pages (I don't know if she was causing problems on video game pages). I'm also still of the opinion that that the topic ban shouldn't have been enacted in the first place, as the problems that lead to it seemed to mostly related to Ghost in the Shell (from which she was already topic banned) and posting on AN/ANI (which she was topic banned from doing without getting permission). Since she was already topic banned from the places where she was causing problems, and was productively working on other anime/manga articles, it seemed wrong to topic ban her from those other articles. It also seems completely nonsensical to require her to work in an area she isn't interested in when she was already working well in an area that she is interested in. I therefore support modifying the topic ban in the proposed way that would make it apply to video game articles, but not to non-video game Japanese media pages (again, I can't speak for whether she was disruptive on video game articles, since I don't edit those as often as anime/manga articles). Calathan (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Solution/knowing the root cause

All i want to do is prove something...that i am a good editor, that i contribute well, and i'm always being rolled into this situation in WP:AN where i am told i'm something else entirely and it boils. i have to deal with that. I get ignored. And i'm not taken seriously. Editors who claim WP:IDHT when i ask them for an answer, it gets ignored. It makes me feel no matter what i say, no matter how constructive it is. it has boiled over time and time.....i can't stay in wikipedia under these circumstances. Like i said, i work part time, go to school full time. i have 1/4 of free time, some of it involves sleep, studying, and shopping for groceries. I literally don't have the time to make edits the way i used to. So i especially don't have time to get used to a new topic where i have no interests.

But worst of all, i want people in WP:AN to stop seeing me the way i am, just because of an interaction. I want them to understand that this "broadly construed" doesn't work, it doesn't convince me. It doesn't make me believe that this ban was necessary. in fact, looking back, it just sort of happened out of nowhere. One editor just admitted, even if they saw good contributions, they wont promise with anything. Another admitted they were driving the bandwagon of anger, that i didn't deserve this. An entire wikiproject supported me and they know the root cause, and yet....thats all ignored. I'm sorry, but i don't want to be in a community that ignores more than a third. That WP:AN always gets it right when theres a group already believing otherwise and actually challenged it thrice.

So what hope is there for me in Wikipedia? i don't feel welcomed at all. i don't feel like i'm wanted. i especially don't feel like what i say is taken seriously. I'm called many things in WP:AN, and no one is ever held accountable.

All i asked was gto given the chance to prove directly what i've been wanting to prove. 1-way itneraction bans from the editors mentioned, shows ALOT. for one, it will free me from the harrassment, from the dismissal, and from the propaganda that i'm far worst....it gives me a chance to prove to neutral editors that i am a good contributor. That what was said about me, is far worst than what it actually was. yes, i speak A LOT. but thats not a crime, especially in WP:AN where you have to prove yourself. TLDR doesn't apply. if it does, plenty of editors got the wrong end of the stick. Lucia Black (talk) 08:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

If you want to prove that you can edit collaboratively, then go do it. Nobody is stopping you. If you want people to take you seriously, then show how you've actually tried to edit collaboratively. Everything you've posted here (as in the prior threads) has been long on claims and short on proof. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

TL;DR absolutely applies. Failure to take the time to concisely express what you're saying is trading other people's time for yours.

Oppose for now. If Lucia can make a "no-fuss, no blame, it's not anyone else's fault" unban request in another six months I'd support. NE Ent 23:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I could get on board with that too, since it'd be a huge improvement from what we've seen in every request for lifting the topic ban thus far, including the current one. I don't even think we need to see an acceptance that the topic ban was correct. I'd prefer to see other editing, and if there's still none of that in six months, it'll be an issue, but I don't think it'll be insurmountable if Lucia's conduct shows the requisite collegiality for continued participation in the community. Lucia, I strongly suggest that if you don't want to have to show your IP to have your interim edits vetted, you start editing while logged in. I look for a lot of things when I evaluate editing patterns, and respectfully, I'm not willing to just take someone else's word for it: I draw my own conclusions, and I'm pretty sure most other editors who evaluate these cases do the same. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

@Mendaliv:, I've already proven this time and time again. In fact, the way i'm treated often times is the proof itself. How quickly it goes to a siteban. But the proof is all around you. Also look at how things are discussed as well. Here's something to consider, if you don't take me seriously, at least take consider the other members who agree with me and at least try to see what they see. I'm not telling them what to say. So its not like everyone believes this is the issue.

Look at Ne Ent's comment, he just said "TLDR, therefore oppose, you wasted my time". Those comments are unnecessary. First of all, his time is completely controlled by his choice. He is blaming me for the choice he made. he doesn't need to spend time in this, but she chooses to. second, TLDR in good faith would be left "undetermined" or "no vote". but knowing he voted means, that TLDR was just convenient to use. His vote was made before it, so whats the use? to give a reason as to why he didn't read? WP:TLDR#Maintain Civility says to go to the editors talkpage and ask them in good faith to paraphrase. That was not the case, quite the opposite.

Whether you agree with me or not, i should be taken seriously from the beginning. Especially if it involves my editing. Other wise, anyone can make any accusation, no prood whatsoever, and get away with it. (the only proof ever used is how the AN plays out, which is mighty convenient for the accusers). I can't be part of a community that openly insults me and ignores me. something has to change. Go Phightins is giving me the biggest chance to prove something...something bigger, the proof that you claim there isn't any. its right here. Lucia Black (talk) 05:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

But the proof is all around you. Proof of what? That you can contribute collaboratively? Not to my satisfaction, unless there are diffs you can provide of your editing in some other topic area. You've been aware of what the community wants to see from you from the git-go, and asking for evidence of editing elsewhere is a routine part of any request to lift a topic ban: You knew or should have known that this evidence would have been requested. Furthermore, if you edited solely while logged out, you knew or should have known that such edits wouldn't be considered in a future request to vacate the topic ban without revealing your IP. Your continued argument on this point is tantamount to arguing that your persistent refusal to provide evidence that you are capable of editing collaboratively should be counted in your favor: It's nonsensical. If anything, it's clear evidence that you are unwilling or unable to comply with the reasonable requests of the community. And to address your persistent long-winded, winding, and frankly unfocused method of argument, it's ineffective at best. While I won't say TL;DR, I will say that you are bordering on being disrespectful when you do not make your arguments more digestible by the volunteers who will read them. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to take (and make) your own arguments seriously. I'm sorry if that's harsh, but it's the truth. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not you agree, Lucia Black, TLDR does apply: If you cannot be concise then that means something, clearly to NE Ent if not to you. As for your reply to Mendaliv, that's the essence of non-responsiveness. He wants to see some evidence of your ability to edit without conflict ~ as do i ~ and we both suggest editing in an area other than the topic ban; your reply that you have edited but aren't willing to show it, and the way you are treated is proof...well, that's a non sequitur. I'm not trying to be rude or nasty, but at this point i have to think that you simply don't understand how to operate within a community ~ this one, anyway. I'd be happy to see another request, maybe even before six months, not necessarily expressing agreement with the topic ban but accepting that the community imposed it, showing productive edits elsewhere (by which i mean simply edits you can point to as yours, here, on another project, substantive or minuscule, something we can judge); then i'd be delighted to help lift the ban. Boil it down: Show the community what it wants to see if you want to be part of it. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 09:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

TLDR isn't suppose to use as an argument against anyone. There's no policy, guide, or even essay that supports that idea. WP:TLDR is designed so that readers can "ask" the person to be more concise within their own talkpage for the sake of understanding them. it clearly states in WP:TLDR openly using it as an argument is considered as an ad hominem, which is a form of incivility. I've literally seen the same editors make longer comments, and never and i mean never get called out on it. Remember, you're entitlede to your own time, not me. Don't blame me for your own time. if you still bring up TLDR as an argument, then fine

I'm perfectly willing to paraphrase, so long as editors are willing to know more if there's information i left out. but i suspect. But for the rest, i'll comment in another area. All i will say is that you over-paraphrased the non-sequitur. you combined two different points. Lucia Black (talk) 06:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Being able to succinctly present your thoughts is central to good communication. I personally tend to be verbose when I speak but when I type, I type it down then distill it before saving. This is what others want from you, Lucia. I'd have to look back through but I believe that I, and one other editor, first proposed of the broadly construed ban, for better or worse. You say that you "..want them to understand that this "broadly construed" doesn't work, it doesn't convince me. It doesn't make me believe that this ban was necessary..". To be blunt, the broad ban has kept things quiet for a very long time with regards to you and from that perspective, it has worked, partly. Topic bans can be seen to have two basic functions. 1) It seeks to remove, what others have determined to be, the source of aggravation from an area and 2) it seeks to encourage that editor to expand their horizons. Relatively speaking your topic ban, despite encompassing all that you are interested in, is in reality quite narrow. However, it may be considered a shame that you haven't thought about expanding your view to other articles related to Japan rather than this one small facet. Blackmane (talk) 05:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC) Blackmane Reason 1 is completely based on the editors who "CHOOSE" to continue the aggravation and the negligence that had made me who i am now. Cynical of the community and have absolutely no trust in it. In fact, it makes me louder, it makes me more angry, it gives me a lot to say. If things were done right from the beginning, if they acknowledged this, then just imagine how little interaction within WP:AN we would've had. Now I've seen little to investigate the issue. But of course, any editor can say "things are quiet because we restricted her from editing". That's not true. Things are quiet because i've literally given up on the community, which is why my alternative is just a site ban on my terms. For reason 2, thats not a real reason.

But like i said "broadly construe" doesn't mean "distinctively clarified" meaning, there's no official reason for it. Its there because of a technicality that refuses to be revised. So like i said, things will be quieter, because i don't want to be part of wikipedia anymore. Not because i'm banned from a topic i was good at and was actually beneficial to. (my words, but not false either). if you want things quiet, and you want me here, hear me out. Try to see my side of the situation. At least "try" Lucia Black (talk) 06:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Alternate proposal: Lift TBan on anime/manga related articles only

Since every editor from WikiProject Anime and manga has supported the lifting of the general topic ban (Knowledgekid87, Calathan, and myself), I would suggest that her topic ban be modified so that she may edit articles that are under the project's scope, excluding those relating to "Ghost in the Shell". Lucia Black has worked well with most of the other editors within this topic area and we are more than willing to have her back on board. This will also giver her the opportunity to "prove herself" to those who insist she demonstrate her ability to collaborate. However, you can't demand someone work in a topic area that they have neither knowledge of or interest in. You must allow them an opportunity to work in a topic area that they have some degree of familiarity with. Otherwise, they will have nothing to contribute. For those who are inclined to oppose this, what is gained by preventing editors who are willing to collaborate with Lucia Black in a subject area if you are going to use her ability to collaborative as evidence to lift of the broader TBan? —Farix (t | c) 22:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Minus the iban part, how exactly is this different from the original proposal? Sergecross73 msg me 23:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Japanese media covers a very wide scope that include video games, movies, social media and the like. Articles like Sailor Moon, or Ghost in the Shell which are more anime and manga related shouldn't have to be under this scope per the requests of the project members. In short I feel that members want her back, they are very aware of her disruption but know she has her good points if focused in the right areas. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, what I meant was, how is it different from what GoPhightin proposed at the beginning of this ANI thread. Sergecross73 msg me 00:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see any difference from the proposal above except that there are no one-way interaction bans. I think, if there's consensus that we should let Lucia prove her ability to edit collaboratively by permitting her to edit topics inside the scope of the current topic ban (and I don't think there is such a consensus), then the only way it should go forward is by allowing a temporary lifting of the topic ban with it to be automatically reinstated at the end of the temporary period unless there's consensus that Lucia has proved her ability to edit in the topic area. In any event, I don't think there's been any real demonstration that Lucia merits a special exemption from the community's normal standards for lifting a topic ban. Broad topic bans are nothing unusual. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The thing is that project members have voiced support in getting her back, people who she has worked with. How would her topic ban being lifted from these select things effect you? I for one want to see some good contributions from Lucia to anime and manga articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't affect me at all. Lucia contributing period doesn't affect me. I've never encountered her outside of AN/ANI. I'm merely offering my opinion as a frequent discussant and observer of situations like these. Granting Lucia need a tailor-made exemption from the standard practice of requiring editing outside the ban area prior to a ban review is just bad policy. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, that's how I read it too. It sounds like removing the iban part - ironically the part that none of the opposers cited as a problem, and then re-proposing it. This section needs to be closed, it's entirely redundant to the one already running. It's not an "alternative" at all. Sergecross73 msg me 00:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Seconded. Honestly this entire discussion is going nowhere. Since there's no consensus to lift the ban, furthermore, such a closure would preclude further challenges to the propriety of the ban generally. Cf. the second bullet of WP:CBAN, which allows the conversion of an indef block into a ban where an unblock discussion results in no consensus to unblock. The challenges to the portions of this ban that are argued as unilaterally imposed without consensus have failed in the same manner. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

She isn't community banned though, just topic banned. The articles involved would just focus on anime and manga. - Knowledgekid87 (talk)

Which is a form of community ban. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

{{u

Mendaliv, i see a lot of symptoms of groupthinking within WP:AN and WP:ANI (refusal to look deeper into the situation, speaks for AN and ANI just by individual members. claiming everything was done correctly, ignore the idea of it ever being wrong). But basically, if you're calling this a "tailor made exemption" you probably don't remember how tailor made the ban itself was. Lucia Black (talk) 07:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I really don't see any way forward if you're going to continue arguing on the basis that the topic ban was wrongful. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I also think the topic ban was wrongful, so it isn't just Lucia Black suggesting that (I'm talking about the topic ban from Japanese Entertainment articles in general . . . I think her topic bans from Ghost in the Shell and from starting threads on AN/ANI were both justified). I agree strongly with Farix's point that all the people who interacted with Lucia Black on anime/manga articles who have posted here have opposed the topic ban. It seems completely nonsensical to me to topic ban Lucia from working in an area where all the editors (or at least those who have spoken up) want her to be allowed to work. What purpose does topic banning her form anime/manga articles serve? Who is that topic ban benefiting? I get that Lucia Black was disruptive here, on AN/ANI, but that is no reason to topic ban her from anime/manga articles, where she wasn't being disruptive. I honestly think the original proposal to site ban her in the discussion that led to the topic ban was reasonable (though I personally would be against it), due to the fact that she was continuing to be disruptive in the areas she already had topic bans (e.g., here on AN). However, the end result of the discussion, where additional topic bans were added covering areas where she wasn't disruptive, just seems completely unjustified to me. Calathan (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, under the policy it states "The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive" There are areas where she was never disruptive in so why would they apply? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

NO When LB and their white knights ceace trying to argue that the original escalating topic bans (Initially interaction ban, then a topic ban for specific properties, then extending to Japanese Entertainment) because of the repeated perceived infractions of the topic ban and failure to reform their disruptive behavior, I will consider relaxing or reducing the topic ban. Not before. Anything else serves only to show LB (and others) that if they ask enough they can get any decision overturned without any sort of reform. I say again to LB Prove to us that you can edit in a collegial manner that does not involve rambling paragraphs of text to try and convince other editors to your viewpoint. I exhort any admin who deals with this long ranging topic to consider that we still have yet to get an acknowledgment from LB that the original topic bans and their expansions were imposed for cause and that the will try to prevent it in the future. The basis of all sanctions is Prevent disruption to Wikipeda and LB's behavior in this entire appeal inspires zero confidence in further disruption from her being prevented. Hasteur (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Or you can look at it that it has been almost 6 months and she has not disrupted anything. As for your bold No opinion I think once is enough don't you think? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Hasteur, I agree that Lucia Black should admit that her previous topic bans (e.g., from Ghost in the Shell) were justified, and I think that it is a problem that she has not done so. I also agree that she was still being disruptive at the time of the latest topic ban. What I disagree with is that the area covered by the latest topic ban is the area in which she was being disruptive. Can you please explain to me why her making yet another AN thread about Ghost in the Shell (both areas where she was already topic banned) should have lead to topic banning her from the rest of Japanese media. If you just expect her to continue to be disruptive in general, then that would be a reason to support a site ban, but how did topic banning her from places where she was working constructively while leaving her free to edit in general help anything? Calathan (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Only because willful innocence compels me.

Knowledgekid87 She's not disrupted anything because she has effectively gone link dead since she was topic banned from editing Japanese Media. As I recall, we imposed a "you must show progress outside your desired area in order to convince us that you can work cooperatively" prior to being allowed back in. Therefore the basic condition that they show progress outside your desired space is deficent.

Calathan LB's topic ban was Initially over specific articles, when they continued to be disruptive, we expanded it to subjects (i.e. Specific series ban Anime/Manga). When they continued to be disruptive via proxy articles (Video games of the series) a broad Japanese Entertainment ban was imposed because (as I recall) we were tired of seeing LB come back with one or more other editors who disagreed about how to divide/unify somethings, we were tired of having to read through multiple kilobytes of text that LB either could not or would not condense to be brief so that a consensus of uninvolved editors could determine a best fit solution. That one of LB's favorite disputants has been indeffed does not excuse the fact that LB's own behavior was atrocious. Has Wikipedia/AN*/WikiProject Anime been better without the reams and reams of text that LB would have contributed? HELL YES. Based on LB's own behavior in this "appeal" indicated that previously sanctioned behavior will not continue? HELL NO. Therefore the only solution is to deny and point LB back at the terms of her ban (Work on a topic besides Japanese Culture and show that you can contribute positively). Hasteur (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Hasteur, I think you are misjudging the rest of Lucia Black's contributions based on primarily interacting with her here. Please take a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 59, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 60, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 61 (59 and 60 are the last two fully before her topic ban from anime/manga, while 61 has some contributions from her from before the topic ban took place). Among those three archives there are more than 150 posts from Lucia Black, and not a single one is a rant, and perhaps one at most could be considered "reams and reams of text" (and that is part of an overall constructive thread). If you read through the threads there, you will see that she worked well with the other people posting, including seeking additional opinions when she had disagreements with other users. She was one of the main people replying when others had questions, and one of the main people organizing work to improve articles that needed improvement. Sure, there was one thread where she disagreed with Ryulong from archive 59 where she made a less-than-helpful comment, but that was one comment compared to 150+ useful comments. I think the talk page archives show that she was a highly productive contributor to the project not just in article space, but also in terms of discussion with other editors. Instead of saving WP:ANIME from rants and incomprehensible posts as you seem to think, this topic ban has instead removed one of the wikiproject's best contributors. Calathan (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Move to close

There's clearly no consensus to lift the topic ban at this point. This thread is going nowhere, and the wall-of-text rants above are only making it impossible for new discussants to evaluate the merits of the actual request here. The propriety of the original topic ban has been discussed, repeatedly, and has never been found to be wrongful. Enough is enough. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Request to site ban per user's personal request

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

---

i personally don't like the current community controlling my editing. Especially for the most shallow reasons possible So i request to be banned indefinitely, on my terms.

Reasons why: i want a real solution. I want things rectified, and i'm tired of looking like the worst editor here, just because a group of editors choose to get involved, and choose to find bans as the easiest way to solve their own personal problems. WP:AN is a choice to use, if an editor out there feels insulted to waste their own time to the point they prefer a ban to no longer hear of the situation, then that is completely on them. This community has given me nothing but trouble. And i'm tired of being treated like this. Haphazardly looking into my situation, never understanding or wanting to understand. And even ignore those who actually know what their talking about. So i'm requesting to get indefinitely banned under my terms. If i return (which will be unlikely), i would have the ability to return upon request.

Of course having the option to edit in my own talkpage. Lucia Black (talk) 04:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry the community has given you nothing but trouble, but this is a community project. While I am sure you can find an admin who is willing to block you I would suggest just taking some time off. Chillum 05:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

While I supported your being sitebanned in the original discussion, there was no consensus for that, and I doubt there'll be consensus now. If you don't want to participate with the project, your better bet is to just leave, but what you're saying here sounds more like you want to be symbolically banned. I can't support that: bans and blocks are to be preventive, not punitive, and definitely not symbolic. However, I do suspect that you're violating your AN/ANI ban by opening a new subthread after the closure of the above discussion. I suggest that this subthread be closed, or simply collapsed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Is this really necessary at this point? I'm requesting to get banned on my terms. I've seen plenty of editors done it before, and i know the option is there. Plus there's no "symbolism" involved. Editors wanted me banned indefinitely anyways (at least the ones who followed me only in WP:AN). SO i'm not accomplishing anything with anyone. No one is going to see my choice to leave as anything else. POssibly only WP:ANIME, but if i really wanted to make an impression, it would be WP:AN (which i'm not). I'm finding my way out without losing sleep. Lucia Black (talk) 05:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Topic ban for Pincrete

An editor is engaging in revert warring on several Malagurski-related articles, pushing his POV on the issue for years. He started his editing on The Weight of Chains talk page, and stated that he's an "Englishman with no connection to anybody or anything in former Yugoslavia", ([9]) but oddly enough, edits with reference to sources that are mostly written in Yugoslav languages, he quotes them, often falsely. Now, it's one thing to be dishonest about not having connections to Yugoslavia to seem neutral, but to edit according to sources he doesn't even understand is very damaging to Wikipedia. Not to mention that Pincrete is constantly edit warring (again, just in the last few hours [10], [11], [12]), removing sourced material and sources ([13], [14], etc.), manipulating Wikipedia by moving material to a page ([15]) then nominating it for deletion the next day ([16]), canvassing editors to create consensus ([17], [18], etc.), even writing in French to hide communication with other users in regards to Malagurski-related articles ([19]), he has attacked me on several occasions in the past, and when I write on his talk page to clear up some matters ([20], [21], [22], etc. - I used to be more polite, but I'm slowly losing my patience), he deletes them ([23], [24], [25], etc.). As someone who is interested in this topic area, I can safely say that despite the fact that Pincrete does some good work in regards to finding grammar mistakes in these articles, he is doing more harm than good. I'd like to request a topic ban on Malagurski-related articles for Pincrete. --UrbanVillager (talk) 01:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, 'Plus ça change', is a standard English expression, meaning (approx.) 'nothing really changes'. See here:-List of French expressions in English and here:-[26].Pincrete (talk) 11:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Reply from Pincrete

Recent 'ANI's'. In September 2014, UrbanVillager initiated an ANI against myself & Bobrayner, here:-Two editors collaborating on biased degrading of Wikipedia articles No editor supported any action against myself or Bobrayner, a clear majority supported a WP:Boomerang against UrbanVillager. This ANI however 'disappeared into the archive' without action, as no admin closed it.

In October 2014, following numerous requests for him to stop making accusations on article talk pages, UrbanVillager initiated this 'sock' investigation. The closing clerk, JamesBWatson, later modified his closing remarks here:-[27].

Shortly therafter, a 'Boomerang' against UrbanVillager was initiated by Ricky81682, here:-Topic ban for UrbanVillager, which was closed by Drmies, with no clear consensus, here:[28].

UrbanVillager's previous ANI's were spurious, and appear to be designed for no other purpose than to waste admin time and the goodwill of any editor who contested his WP:ownership of the Malagurski articles.

Edit war : What UrbanVillager describes above as an 'edit war', is an attempt by him to overturn a consensus that the article should not go into the details about a controversial court case that Malagurski was involved with, full discussion here:Talk:Boris Malagurski#Proposed text. UrbanVillager's final remark in that discussion is "I think it's enough to say that the authors** received threats, reported them and three were convicted, without what Malagurski or the defendants said about the trial. --UrbanVillager (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)". If UrbanVillager has changed his mind about the need to go into details, why has UrbanVillager not attempted to argue his case on the talk page, before initiating this ANI? Also why are the only details that he wishes added 'pro-Malagurski'? … **(nb by 'authors', he means 'film-makers')

Language skills and neutrality: My Serbian is not 'native level', I am open about that, for this reason I am cautious, and if uncertain, call upon a native speaker, within or, sometimes 'off-wiki'. However even a rudimentary understanding of a language, enables one to understand the difference between a publication saying 'the filmmaker announced today on his Facebook page', and the paper writing in its own voice, or the difference between an 'ad' and an article. To the best of my memory I have never 'quoted' any Serbian, other than copy-pasting it entire from a source. It's a trivial matter, but having re-looked at the sources UrbanVillager uses to prove my 'mis-quoting', I am still unable to find any mention of this film critic being 'known for her interviews'.

But once again, even if UrbanVillager is right, why does he not argue his case on the talk page, or tell me what I have missed instead of bringing the matter here? (his edit reason, in Serbian [29] translates as 'If you do not understand Serbian, do not interpret texts in a language unknown to you, or admit that you are not a "neutral" Englishman').

My talk page: UrbanVillager left a fairly ill-mannered message on my talk page,[30] I replied that the article talk pages were the proper place for such discussions, and asked him to confine himself to discussion about content[31]. I left my reply for 3 days for UrbanVillager to read and then deleted the section (my normal practice for 'closed matters'). UrbanVillager reverted my delete of my talk page and added further fairly rude and irrelevant messages[32] (the Serbian part of this message translates (approx.) as 'Since you interpret references in Serbian - speak and understand Serbian (or Croatian, Bosnian, Montenegrin, irrelevant which). First, I would prefer you not to remove comments that I leave on your talk page, it is very ugly. Second, you presented yourself a long time ago as a neutral Englishman who, well, was just interested in this topic, and it is obvious that you are not neutral … and that you come from our region. Above I wrote that I was willing to turn a new page, but no pretending that you are neutral, because you are obviously vehemently anti-Malagurski and his films (most likely anti-Serbia and Yugoslavia), I followed your changes to other articles and it is not even close to the same manner - Wikipedia is not a place for propagating ethnic agenda.) & later [33]. I deleted these half-read as I had already made it clear WHERE content discussions should take place and that there was no reason for us to discuss other matters, especially since UrbanVillager sought to do so in such a belligerent manner [34]. Despite this UrbanVillager left a further message in a similar vein shortly therafter.[35].

UrbanVillager links to WP:Dispute resolution, claiming he was attempting to 'clear up matters', perhaps he should read there 'Talk page discussion is a prerequisite … … be prepared to justify your changes to other editors on the talk page' … and most importantly … 'Focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct; comment on content, not the contributor.'

UrbanVillager's statements are not even coherent, at one point we have 'If you do not understand Serbian, do not interpret texts in a language unknown to you', and on the same day 'it is obvious that you are not neutral … and that you come from our region'. If either of these statements were true, they would not disqualify me as a neutral editor, but the combination is absurd.

Personal abuse: UrbanVillager says I have attacked him 'on several occasions in the past' .

In the collapsed section immediately below are examples of UrbanVillager's personal abuse against me (which are all over a very short period and which I have largely copy-pasted from a previous ANI, here:-[36]. I collapse them as I do not wish them to 'clog-up' this page).

Evidence of personal attacks by UrbanVillager against Pincrete

Below are the examples of personal abuse against me, italics (except in brackets), are direct quotes from UrbanVillager, plain text (and bracketed italics) are used to clarify context. Do you speak English? [37] ... This was a response to my comment that WP should not be using the peacocky description "Official selection for XYZ festival", where "Official selection" was not used by XYZ festival itself. In previous discussions, you've shown that you don't know what are film credits, that you don't know how festivals work, and now you're showing that you don't understand the definition of a synopsis[38] ... This remark was a reply to my observation that the synopsis needed re-writing, from ==synopsis==,downwards:-[39] My reply to UrbanVillager's post is Synopsis: I agree[40]. (large sections of the article, and 3 years of edit history ,were deleted shortly therafter for long-term copyvio of the film maker's website. All of this copyvio material had been inserted by UrbanVillager) Edit reason here: can't you read? It was here before you started editing the article (nb. the diff for this has since been deleted, I will attempt to find other proof). (before I 'started editing' was the period when almost the whole article was a 'copy-paste' of the film-maker's website and press-pack). The film is Canadian, it says so in the film credits. Either you can't read or have a POV agenda.[41] ... This last was a response to a compromise I had proposed over the film's 'nationality', my response is in the 'next' edit. your anti-Malagurski, anti-Yugoslav agenda.[42] ... This was a response to my querying whether, what appeared to be an interview given by the film maker in a Balkan paper announcing a future event at Google (ie self-sourced of the 'well next month I'm giving a presentation at Google' variety), was a sufficiently RS for the film maker having actually given this presentation at Google headquarters (the only source to report the event but phrased in 'our voice'). No, see, this is where a human brain comes in and says "It's Malagurski's film, the credits are there to give details about the film" ... I'd like to ask you one more time to stop trolling and find some constructive way to contribute to Wikipedia. Stop pushing your anti-Malagurski, anti-Serbian and anti-Yugoslav POV. [43] ... Once again my response is in the 'next' edit. His Royal Highness Pincrete[44] ... This also misrepresents the 'reviews', since 'Markovic' is not a Professor, and when an original source was finally found, it turns out to be a paragraph long report of a discussion, written-up by a student. There are many other abusive comments, and whole sections such as here:-[45], my reply is (bottom 2 paras) here:-[46]. Pincrete is canvassing in desperate attempt to fabricate consensus[47] ... I was informing and checking, the editor had made edits and comments only 3 days before. The incident referred to by UrbanVillager is here:-[48] "I shouldn't be allowed to edit these articles since I don't know Serbian sufficiently fluently, and ought to tell UrbanVillager WHO I am to show my competence to edit", this sentence is my summary of the discussion here.[49] ... The context is that I mis-read an ENGLISH translation, while doing article tidying, apologised and remedied the error. The entire original article (created by UrbanVillager) has since been deleted for blatant copyvio of the film-maker's website. Additionally UrbanVillager has 'outed' another editor in a threatening manner on that editor's talk page and on an article talk page, I am willing to provide proofs 'off-wiki', do so here would compound the 'outing'. UrbanVillager has also made offensive racist comments (to Balkan editors, not to me). UrbanVillager has never apologised to any editor, (to the best of my knowledge), certainly not to me.

Pincrete (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Pincrete is skilled at writing tons of pages of content with no purpose other than to muddy the water and cause independent editors to lose interest in the issue, but everything I wrote still stands and I'm still requesting a topic ban for Pincrete. The most critical articles which he abuses are Boris Malagurski, The Weight of Chains, The Weight of Chains 2, Revolucija (TV show) and The Presumption of Justice. Thanks, --UrbanVillager (talk) 13:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Also a note that Future Perfect at Sunrise deleted my comment above. This user has blocked me without reason before and is now deleting my comments. Great. --UrbanVillager (talk) 14:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Since you initiated the thread you probably shouldn't be the one to collapse replies from a concerned user. –xeno^talk 14:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Since Pincrete collapsed my comments in the past, I thought Pincrete wouldn't mind. In any case I apologize. Xeno, any comments on the subject matter? --UrbanVillager (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

NOTE, in case it is not clear from the interaction immediately above, UrbanVillager collapsed the entirety of my response above:[50]. Nowhere do I propose a topic ban in the collapsed section (the given edit reason). Pincrete (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, you have not responded to my question as to when I have attacked you personally … You have provided no examples of what you consider to be my 'abuse' of these articles … You have not answered my question as to why you initiated this ANI, without having even attempted to discuss disputed content on the article talk pages.Pincrete (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Question, at the risk of behaving like a turkey voting for Christmas, isn't this on the wrong noticeboard,(should it not be 'Incidents'?). I intend to assume it SHOULD and would be grateful if someone would 'name' or 'ping' me if anything here requires my attention.Pincrete (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism-only account

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

---

user:Tabithalol115 might as well be blocked without further delay; probably a sock of User:69intenso (blocked 16 hours ago) and User:R15plus (final warning 16 hours ago). Schwede66 09:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Category:Wikipedia usernames with possible policy issues

Does anyone ever review Category:Wikipedia usernames with possible policy issues? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The instructions say that the users should be removed from the category once they're indef-blocked or have not edited for several weeks. Anyone could do this step, you wouldn't have to be an admin. The first two I checked were already blocked and I have removed them from the category. There's 1,336 in the category presently. I will do some more later, I have to go out right now -- Diannaa (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I checked the 5 more - 4 were removed, User talk:2007Cyberstalking should still stay. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I've requested bot assistance. Of course that won't help with "have not edited for several weeks", but it will be able to remove the indef-blocked users. Nyttend (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The category is populated by a template (a user warning IIRC). Could the template be recoded to not apply the category to pages of blocked editors? Normally, the user warning (and thus the cat) is removed by the admin who blocks the account when it is supplanted by the block message, but I guess not all admins are dutiful enough to leave a block template or to remove the previous warning. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I never remove previous warnings when adding a block template. I don't think we are supposed to. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that after an admin blocks (or not), the {{uw-coi-username}} template must be removed manually from the page. It's usually under a "Your username" heading. But it's hidden, so you have to edit the section, select the span of text that includes it, and save. It would be super awesome if there was some more automated way of doing so, so I suspect the reason that category is severely backed up is because there isn't one. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Review request for non-admin closure at WT:NCF

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

---

I started an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films)#RFC: Series subject as a name to discuss that page’s advice to use (and, presumably, the actual use of) the “subject” of a film series as its proper name when that series is known to have no official or commonly used name. At one point I posted (what I consider) a very strong argument as to how this practice would be inappropriately misleading [51]. Rather than responding, another user who had been opposing from the beginning (using a repeatedly refuted argument) decided to request closure to discourage further discussion [52], before 30 days had passed and without notification on that Talk page. The closing user closed the discussion when several of the questions and concerns I raised had not ever been addressed, and I contend it was closed without considering the strength of the arguments. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

To me, the ideal outcome here would be that the discussion is reopened and one or more editors discuss the merits of the linked argument, such as explaining why it’s wrong. Or even that it’s not reopened and that happens. What it seems like is people just don’t want to acknowledge the problem because they can’t dismiss it, and that’s frustrating as hell… —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Greetings, friend. The close seems sound to me. A quick read of the linked discussion, and the one above it, make it pretty clear that it's time to drop the stick. HiDrNick! 23:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

As I said in that discussion, I will happily drop the stick once the issues (see my first diff) are addressed or explained away. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I actually included a DNAU at the top for that very reason, so I’ve removed yours. But thanks. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per WP:SNOW, WP:BURO and WP:DEADHORSE.- MrX 01:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • WP:DEADHORSE would apply if there was anyone claiming that it was not misleading, or that it was acceptable (not in violation of WP:AT) for it to be misleading. That’s not the case here; it’s not a horse, it’s an elephant in the room. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

FFS, you still banging on about this? LET. IT. GO. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I am, and I've explained why. You've made it abundantly clear that YOUDONTLIKEIT. If you have nothing else to contribute other than calling me a troll in edit summaries, I'll thank you to stay out of this. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 09:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:DUCK applies here. Or troll. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

How about WP:NPA? Or WP:KETTLE, for that matter. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 12:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Your forum-shopping trolling at ANI has just been closed. WP:KETTLE indeed. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I don’t appreciate the gross bad-faith mischaracterization or the violation of WP:STICK (at “If you have ‘won’”), but yes, I think we’re both guilty of WP:KETTLE at this point. But let’s stay on topic here. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse NE Ent 10:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. IP: Even if you still disagree; even if your arguments have not been answered, or have been ignored; even if everything you say is true ~ and i don't believe it is, having read the RfCs and tried to wrok out what is happening; even if all these things, and despite your protestations to the contrary, DEADHORSE is completely applicable: The community has decided that the issue is closed, at least for the present, and as part of that community it is up to you to accept that. That's not to deny that the community may have made a mistake, or that it may change its mind at some point. Simply put, it is time to admit that you will not win this argument. Put it down, edit elsewhere, come back to it later, if you believe the time to be right. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 11:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @LindsayH: Thank you very much for that very civil and well-reasoned explanation. Seems to be a bit lacking of late (not to disregard others who’ve given similar non-combative advice). I still wish that someone who disagreed would actually provide a direct counterargument, but you’re right. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 22:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Something needs to be done about this IP troll and their WP:DE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse the horse is dead. It is not going anywhere anytime soon. -- Orduin ^Discuss 23:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

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

გიორგი IV გურიელი

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

---

This title (გიორგი IV გურიელი) is restricted to administrators at the moment. There is a request at redirects for creation, which I could not entertain due to limitation. Please look into the matter.  SAMI  ^talk 15:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

This is the English language Wikipedia, so why would we even need such a redirect? De728631 (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

There are certain instances when non-English redirects were created such as Винни-Пух.  SAMI  ^talk 18:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Is there a board that sets protocols in terms of gender?

I ask here, bc this is where the more experienced editors are. The Bruce Jenner talk page seems to be (more than) a little confusing. One of the editors made reference to a protocl where he do not address sex-change personal descriptors (he or she, for instance) until we have a rs'd statement from the individual "only". I was wondering where (and when) this was determined, and if this is set in stone. quick Google search seems to point out that the individual ins indeed pursuing gender reassignment, and yet there is no mention of it in the article. Some guidance here would be helpful. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

You are probably looking for Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Identity, and in particular the bit which states, "An exception to the above is made for terms relating to gender identity. In such cases, Wikipedia favors self-designation, even when usage by reliable sources indicates otherwise." And no, this isn't set in stone; you are free to propose changes to the Manual of Style on its talk page. However, you would do well to review the past discussions before doing so; simply retreading old arguments is unlikely to work unless you have good reason to believe that community consensus has shifted. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The thing about the other precedent; Chelsea Manning unambiguously stated that she was a woman, and that was that. From my understanding, people continued to refer to her as a male even though that self identification thing. I see on the talk page that it's concerning that the individual has never made a public statement one way or the other. While I do appreciate vigilance in the topic area, we have to be careful not to assume that they are coming out or the like if they really haven't. The BLP implication is also there, and swings both ways. Tutelary (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Both excellent points and posts. Thanks for the input. I wasn't really seeking change, but instead a go-to place where this subject has resulted in some community editing standards. I've got that now. Thanks, people. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Sizable backlog at WP:TFD

Hey. I don't know if this goes here or in the requests for closure, but WP:TFD closures are backed up by more than a week and counting. Discussions up through March 4 and including some of March 5 should already be closed, but there are a bunch of seemingly uncontroversial requests still open going all the way back to February 24 and earlier. If some of you guys could take a look at them, that'd be awesome. Thanks. TCN7JM 19:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

CFD is worse, where we still have open discussions from December. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Request for assistance with old merge discussion

I discovered an old, old merge discussion that had consensus for no merge back in 2011, but was not closed, nor were the merge from/to templates removed from the pages involved (Windows Services for UNIX, Interix). However, someone commented in the discussion on Feb 17 asking if the pages could be merged – the first new message in the discussion in four years. My own opinion is to keep the pages separate, as per the original consensus, but seeing that the other editor has asked for a merge I wonder what the proper procedure should be in this case.

I'd like to ask an admin or more senior editor with merge experience to come have a look, and decide whether this discussion should finally be closed (with merge or no merge outcome decided) or if it should stay open until a new consensus emerges (if one does). On that note, is there anywhere to list merge discussions for attention, like a counterpart to AfD? // coldacid (talk|contrib) 01:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

My personal opinion: Close the old discussion, keeping the new comments outside the closure. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)