User talk:Ricky81682/Archive 8

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Ralph Siewert at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 23:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Ralph Siewert

Hello! Your submission of Ralph Siewert at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Zappa24Mati 19:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John J. Pettus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Clark (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:GR

Long past any productive use

I'm sorry, but I'm confused by your meaning: I can't find any place in which I suggested that you go to a wikiproject, so please point me to such a location. I don't remember intending to say that; if I remember rightly, I was meaning that you should file a highly publicised RFC (putting it on WP:CENT, for example) or begin a discussion about the template's future at a prominent community discussion page, such as one of the Village Pumps. FYI, I'm on a quick lunch break right now (it's 12:50PM here), and I don't expect to be online again until after 8PM. Nyttend (talk) 16:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC) @Nyttend: Your close stated that the template was used in a number of wikiprojects. I have no idea which ones. I created an RFC but I disagree with your speedy closing for that reason. There are plenty of highly visible discussions conducted via a simple TFD. If you were correct, there would have been a flood and it would have been an easy WP:SNOW and besides I think it should be obviously that I was disputing the template not supporting the deletion of every single footnote citation. I don't believe in templates for hard-coded citations generally but my first concern is why a singular template is being used for so many various citations. The proper discussion would have been at TfD to split or delete the template (in the holding cell obviously), not for an RFC on the general principles about citations because that's not my issues. I'm going to ask for a chance to plead my case at deletion review; there are very, very few RFCs to discuss changes to a template. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC) Are you referring to my comment about "project policies"? Some of the project policies in question are WP:CITE and the WP:BURDEN section of WP:V, which would be significantly impaired by the deletion of the template. Had you simply been proposing changes, I would not have closed it as wrong-venue, but you marked Template:GR with a "This template is being discussed for deletion" message, not a merger or modification or other template; the inline bit attached to the template said that it was up for deletion; and your edit marking the template for TFD said "Nominated for deletion". Nyttend (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC) @Nyttend: I thought you meant WikiProject policies. What policy is affected if we use or don't use a template to store reference tags? Of course, I was advocating the deletion of the template itself, like I advocated for at Template:Lunar crater references to be deleted after being substed at the 1400 or so articles it's at. What do you think Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Holding_cell is for? There's been templates there since a year old deletion discussion. I'm well aware of how extraordinarily difficult reference templates are to fix, regular subst won't work right. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC) All are vastly smaller templates. Getting consensus on something used by 49,117 pages warrants its own discussion, just like getting rid of a project policy warrants it; we don't get rid of disputed policies by nominating them for deletion, and in the same way, we don't get rid of something used in 1% of all articles by nominating it for deletion. Nyttend (talk) 02:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC) @Nyttend:Do you really think your view is so correct that it warrants a speedy keep and no discussion? There weren't issues with discussing the infobox artist template (with more than twice as many uses) they did with the actual proposal, not about where to discuss it and that's way more visible than my issue). That's not a policy rationale there. No one else even suggested it in the course of less than four hours. One editor came with a question on how the template works, that's it. You had no consensus to shut it down. Even with the infobox, it wasn't a single administrator who said that his view is the super vote. I put this up at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Template:Geographic_reference and as I said, the only reason I can see is that you think it doesn't belong there and that's enough to shut down all discussion. Feel free to comment there. Now, we both know the template is used in all those pages. There were two options for me: (a) put the notice in the noinclude section and see who wanders around to TfD and finds the discussion [or try to slap notices over a very broad amount of places] or (b) put it inline in the template itself so that everyone who sees it knows what's going on. I chose (b) because it's probably the most cryptic template I have ever seen. There is no way for me to put a notice that actually describes how it works (and go ahead and tell me what more I should be doing past where I've noticed the RfC). Nobody in their right mind would expect that a particular citation go to a general "geographic references" template which call them out as 1, 2 [but don't use two], 3, 4, 5, .... This kind of goofy idiosyncratic citation templates are not new. I fully expect years of edits like this because the template system works weird when it's in a ref tag. Now, do you really think we'll get more visibility from places like Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography and all the village pump places or from the 47k uses all over the encyclopedia. It's a terrible template: people who actually try to link it to within the general search box (for the entire United States) are immediately slapped down and told the search page is the reference period. That is infinitely more destructive towards WP:V and WP:BURDEN than anything I can think of. How is it better than I can post a city's population and tell you "here's the generic US country search page, go find it" versus the actual page? Look at every single US city page. There is not a single one where you aren't stuck looking at each reference, going to a dozen search boxes and searching and searching again. Why? Because people want a template so they can quickly type in GR|7 one time and never worry about it again. Nonsense. The whole thing deserves to be deleted as a warning against this kind of template-creep. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC) And that Grantville nonsense took over three weeks to clean up on maybe a dozen pages. I was on TfD with practically three of those things a day. I fully expect at least a decade to fix this mess and more of these types. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC) [ec with your last comment] As I have told you multiple times, you nominated the template for deletion, which would have the direct result of causing large amounts of article text to become uncited. This is completely different from a request to merge two templates, and deleting the template would immediately cause these almost-50K pages to violate our verifiability policy's "burden" section. Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale; the participants in a TFD may not decide to ignore the verifiability policy, so the only option is to retain the template unless you obtain consensus at a broad community forum to have the thing replaced. Kindly find such a forum and have your discussion there, or go to such a forum to promote the discussion you've begun at talk; you cannot convince me to become a co-conspirator in an attempt to circumvent a core policy. Nyttend (talk) 03:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC) I am advocating substituting every single use and then deleting the thing. I'm not an idiot who's saying "I don't like that people have sources here, let's delete every link to those sources." If I told you I hated template:imdb and wanted that template deleted, would you say that I want to remove all imdb links? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Jack Merridew

Wouldn't it have been easier to do a mass nomination? BOZ (talk) 00:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I hear you, no worries.  :) BOZ (talk) 02:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Poor form or unreasonable expectations?

Hello Ricky81682. Id like to ask a question regarding your recent deletion of {{WPRedirect}}. I would have thought it standard practice to remove all transclusions prior to deletion to circumvent leaving redlinks on the transcluded pages. Are my expectations unreasonably high or do you agree it is poor form to delete a template without reviewing "what links here"? I removed the transclusions shortly after the deletion, but feel the better practice would have removed them first. Am I wrong in this regard?—John Cline (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Removing image from Michael O'Hare

Hi, you stated: "no fair use for non-free image on a living person", but he died nearly two years ago. Is re-adding appropriate or is it not allowed for deceased persons as well? Per WP:NFCI: Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely. Jarkeld (talk) 19:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@Jarkeld: You are correct but the image File:B5 sinclair.jpg still needs an NFCC tag for usage on that page. I've reverted the edit based on that (next time, you could have done that and then commented to me) and added the rationale. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Ralph Siewert

The DYK project (nominate) 00:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Census templates

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2009_November_23#Template_for_Census_data.3F.

Also {{US Census 2000}}. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC).

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Re: Talk:LoveGame/GA2 MfD

I closed the MfD because the User:IndianBio allowed me to continue this GAR since I calmed down with apology (he responded positively). We're both happy now. I did not give out an explanation because I was busy with the GAR. I didn't say I started the GAR because of my dislike of pop music. I created the GAR actually because I found poor English and dead links. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 05:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Did you just pwn another user’s sandbox?

I reverted your edits. Did not expect such behavior from an admin. � (talk) 11:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ï¿½: User_talk:Johnuniq#User_talk:Johnuniq.2Fsandbox2. Did it occur to you to ask either of us? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 14:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

And see Template_talk:Geographic_reference#Obsolete_reference for the rationale (the 37k articles use year 2000 census data and we needed to determine the subset to start on updating them for 2010 data). I think that's preferable in my userspace than someone else's. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 14:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever encountered the editor who reverted your move, and they have not communicated with me, so let's just sort this out. I believe I have complied with WP:CWW by copying the wanted revision of User:Johnuniq/sandbox2 to User:Ricky81682/sandbox/GR. I then edited the latter to include a permalink to the full list, if it is ever wanted. I removed the {{trout}} from the above as it not approriate, particularly given that you and I had discussed the issue, and I think this is now resolved. Johnuniq (talk) 02:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I think all parties can now move on. I just hope not to see it reverted again since I don't know why it was done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Drama

Sorry for dragging you into this drama. I didn't realize that the IP user would obsess over you so much. There's an open SPI case, if you're interested. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

FYI

Category:Latest stable software release templates/Category:Latest preview software release templates, designed specifically as single-use. --Netoholic @ 04:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest an RfC. Otherwise, I expect nothing different than the nastiness that followed me trying to get Template:Infobox element to be coded back into the articles (see this one, same arguments on both sides going on a decade, and I don't even want to get into the attacks at WP:ANI); certain WikiProjects take their walled gardens very seriously. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Response to acceptance of unblock request

Thank you very much for having accepted my unblock request! I'll keep my promise not to engage in the kind of behaviour that led to the block.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 23:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe you will. There's plenty of stuff about the articles to argue about lol. Just try to change topics away from that kind of material if it gets too heated. I know what you were talking about, it just didn't belong there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Weight of Chains

Hello, I'm wondering WHY we cannot use the film's website as source for funding method? The site is actually the source for MOST of the factual info about both W of Chains and the sequel, due to the paucity of 3rd party sources. I have no strong opinion either way about the info being there, but am just curious. Pincrete (talk) 10:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello again, I've left a couple of messages on MY talk, basically to say that restoring/collapsing the weight of chains talk page was the only way I could see of all material (inc. some current discussions), being retained.

You asked a question on the ANI (what's the basic problem on this page?). Firstly the subject is fairly WP:Fringe with few RSs and little interest to most editors. Connected to that is that the films are very controversial/contentious (sometimes, they make Zeitgeist look like 'Bambi'). The pages have a history of proven or repeatedly suspected 'socks' or 'not here' editors. The pages are also periodically targetted by partisan 'anon' editors, both for and against. Lastly, it has never been possible to establish any collaborative approach, or common purpose, and this has exhausted the goodwill of several good editors (I myself took over a year's break from the page, unable to see any point in such fruitless uphill effort). That's my take, for what it's worth. Pincrete (talk) 11:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like basic tenacious editing by individuals with a vested interest in fluffing the thing up. Have you considered asking for page protection? It should cut down on the new editors (I'm aware of the 'new' editor who suddenly feels like bringing up some obscure issue from years ago repeatedly coming). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I've only just seen your reply (as I don't watch user pages), thankyou both for the reply and other efforts, the WoC page does have some protection. The main reason for coming to your talk, is to ask a procedural question, the Weight of Chains ANI case has now been archived :-[1], does that mean that the whole matter is just 'dead and buried'? Pincrete (talk) 16:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Ricky81682, I got the impression that you might have become thoroughly fed up with everybody in 'Malagurski-land' (I wouldn't blame you if you were), however as you made a voluntary return today, I'll just appraise you of the most recent drama, here:-[2]. Pincrete (talk) 17:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Ricky81682, I've only just become aware of your proposed topic ban :[3], in view of this, obviously ignore my prev. message. Pincrete (talk) 23:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Move review for Oblasts of Ukraine

An editor has asked for a Move review of Oblasts of Ukraine. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derianus (talk • contribs)

Disambiguation link notification for November 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kym Hampton, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Sun Devils and NCAA Tournament. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Updating WP:RESTRICT

Hello Ricky81682. Thanks for closing the topic ban discussion for UrbanVillager. Would you consider entering the ban in WP:RESTRICT to make a convenient record of the decision? EdJohnston (talk) 03:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Why

No longer productive

Why am i constantly being threatened that more sanctions will be added if i go to ARBCOM? I'm constantly being insulted, and no one wants to answer the question if whether there was ever any reason to do it in the first place. And its all based on consensus. Why isn't that enough reason to go to ARBCOM if i believe its LOCALCONSENSUS that revolves around this. And the people who aren't familiar can only rely on the standard procedure (even if the previous wasn't based on procedure). In the end, all i want is some answers....what i want out of ARBCOM is answers. The answers the group of editors that got me banned in the first place have been reluctant to provide. If the community can't provide that, i believe ARBCOM can give me the answers. Lucia Black (talk) 08:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC) Also, you misunderstood my question. I"m asking why would ARBCOM result in more sanctions. Lucia Black (talk) 01:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC) I gave Lucia Black her answer. An article, one she is particularly proud of, is suffering from fake sources. The community asks Lucia Black to stop discussing and start editing. What is her reaction? Were the bans fairly imposed? It does not matter at all. Why is Lucia Black here? 84.127.82.127 (talk) 02:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC) @84.127.82.127:. Be nice. I saw your comment before and I understand your point entirely. The relevant issue is here, I believe. If you are honestly concerned about sources (don't make accusations) ask Lucia Black about it, I'd suggest organizing a series of specific questions for her, asking if she would be willing to work on those specific points and asking the community for an exemption for that specific article or even more specifically for an exemption to discuss the sources for a particular article. Now, if there is no evidence of edits elsewhere, it's likely to be rejected but that's not your issue. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC) Ricky81682 closed the discussion in the noticeboard and this point was raised.[4][5] Is the administrator granting Lucia Black permission to discuss the sources for Ghost in the Shell (video game)? I do ask Lucia Black if she would work on this. 84.127.115.190 (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC) No, I'm suggesting you first ask Lucia Black if the editor would be willing to ask for an exemption to work on this and then she or you can ask WP:AN for said exemption. I may voice an opinion supporting this, nothing more. I think most people wouldn't want a single topic ban to hinder editing if it's legitimate. However, in my opinion, it is unlikely to occur if Lucia Black does not actually attempt to edit anywhere else and based on whether people actually think you're questioning about source material is actually legitimate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC) Even though Lucia Black made the effort to review Secrets of Rætikon and the issue about the sources of Ghost in the Shell (video game) was raised in the noticeboard, Ricky81682 has closed the discussion and formally stated the community's decision: Lucia Black is topic banned even in this case. Now the administrator suggests that Lucia Black repeat the same procedure. Furthermore, the administrator is questioning my source challenges; Ricky81682 should realize that he is actually protecting these sources. I would say there is a case for arbitration. However, Lucia Black should answer now. What is her priority, to work on the sources of this article or to start an arbitration case? 84.127.115.190 (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC) I have zero idea what you are talking about. At this point, if you want anything done, go ahead and post a request on ANI or wherever. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC) I will if necessary, but first we need to know if there is an editor worth unbanning. 84.127.115.190 (talk) 01:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC) As much as theres issues with this comment, i'm merely asking Ricky why would there be any reason to add "More" sanctions if i go to arbcom. Is going arbcom suddenly a violation? Lucia Black (talk) 02:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

So, we have an answer. According to Ricky81682, is Lucia Black right? Is it true that she cannot speak about these sources? 84.127.115.190 (talk) 06:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Rogue Admin

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UrbanVillager (talk • contribs) 17:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

MFDs on userspace drafts

Hello there. I noticed you submitted a number (1, 2, 3, 4) of abandoned and unsubmitted AFC drafts for deletion at WP:MFD. It looks like they ones I've linked are all eligible for speedy deletion under WP:G13 as they're all way over 6 months old. Just thought it might be quicker and easier for you to zap them rather than waiting for an MFD as they look fairly uncontroversial. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 01:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Gotcha. I wasn't aware of that fine distinction but will bear it in mind if I find myself trying to clean up that part of Wikipedia in future. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 02:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion

I have just tried to propose the article Alexis Strum for deletion but could not find instructions on how to do it and have made a mess of it. I see that you recently proposed Craig Abaya for deletion so presumably know the ropes. What should I do? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Its OK, I have managed to find the instructions now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

''Cumhuriyet Bayramı''

As much as I really don't agree with myself with asking this, could you please restore ''Cumhuriyet Bayramı''? I don't believe that WP:CSD#R3 applies since it was created as a result of a page move. (Seriously, I wish that redirects with titles that contain wiki markup were themselves eligible for a speedy deletion criterion, but at the present time, they are not, as far as I can see.) Steel1943 (talk) 14:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for restoring the redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 04:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

When you're right, you're right. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Since you've insisted on restoring this useless redirect, would one of you please now nominate this for deletion? It's worthless. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 05:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Well I had to restore it because R3 doesn't include those with histories (but the history is possibly trivial). There's a number of articles (see these redirects where the poor markups are kept so I don't see the particular need. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Ricky81682, the example that you provided isn't wiki markup: it's a quotation mark. Steel1943 (talk) 02:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• @209.211.131.181: Do you mean a nomination ... like this? Steel1943 (talk) 02:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Assistance with odd behaviour

You may or may not remember blocking this user. He has begun making very odd edits that seem forum-like and queer. I hope you can review these edits, such as this one, and decide on an appropriate course of action. I helped get him unblocked, last time, but this behaviour has now been continuing for many days. RGloucester — ☎ 23:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I just blocked again. It feels like a situation of Righting Great Wrongs everywhere and the "I'm now in ISIS" comments showed me the issues haven't resolved themselves. I left it to ANI for probably another thrashing about it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

El Clasico

Ricky, it's not about a "middle ground" to appease us, it's about accuracy. So you know the veracity of that Spanish source? Its contents? Its reliability? I couldn't care less what took place at that game, I'm only interested in an accurate account. In terms of neutrality take a look at edit history... 08:32, 15 October 2014‎ Carlos Rojas77 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (39,115 bytes) (-786)‎ . . (All of this may be true (or not), and if is it needs to be referenced)...I REMOVED this very section that a Barcelona fan had installed. I only allowed it back in when it was properly referenced...and then I REMOVED that Franco image from the article a Barcelona fan installed (that you brought up in discussion). Next came Cid the Madrif fan who has tried to whitewash the controversy surrounding the game. I've been piggy In the middle of warring Madrid and Barclona fans and tried to maintain neutrality, and have also asked for help from four admins with very little forthcoming. It's been frustrating to say the least.Carlos Rojas77 (talk) 01:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Does it occur to you that you're being ignored because you're possibly wrong? You're presuming there's a controversy and that people who disagree it happen isn't a part of the controversy. It's controversial in part because I suspect people will deny it. The article states that a documentary argues the other view I think. If you want to argue that we're giving a claim undue weight that's fair (a claim by a single documentary filmmaker that he spoke to a single player who denied it is very thin). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Closure of Siteban of Djcheburashka

1) You said in the closure that "User:Djcheburashka is hereby indefinitely banned", but on his talk page you said "Pursuant to this discussion, I have indefinitely blocked you." Being indefinitely banned is different then just being indefinitely blocked (Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Difference_between_bans_and_blocks). If you did mean to siteban him can I ask that you update his talkpage with the appropriate template which informs him of what happened and how he can appeal (such as {{Template:Uw-csblock}})

2)Assuming that you meant to siteban him, its my opinion that you have incorrectly interpreted the consensus in closing this discussion. There were only 3 of 15 (20%) people who supported a siteban for Djcheburashka. Of those 3, two of them were highly involved (EvergreenFir and Roscelese), mind you even involved editors opinion should be taken into account, but still only a single uninvolved editor supported the siteban. There are a few others that supported an indefinite block, but that is not the same as a siteban Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Difference_between_bans_and_blocks. A community imposed siteban is about as extreme a measure as can be taken. No admin acting on their own can issue it (even with discretionary sanctions), nor can the user appeal to an admin through the Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System. Only an appeal to the community or ArbCom is allowed. As such, an extreme measure such as this requires a very clear consensus among the community to be imposed which I believe even a Wikipedia:Rough consensus was lacking in this situation. To the extent that you closed it for policy reasons that you felt overrode the consensus in the other way, I would point at Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers which suggests that there are reasons to give new editors some leeway that we would not give more experienced editors. Such as where it says "ignorance of Wikipedia's guidelines can/may excuse the mistakes of a newcomer."

Might I suggest instead a Topic Ban on Dasha Zhukova and/or a IBan with Roscelese and/or an indefinite block to make sure he understands that this behavior is not appropriate.

--Obsidi (talk) 03:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I suspect an indefinite block was intended, and that had very good support in the discussion at ANI. A topic ban would still allow him to behave badly elsewhere, and that is a large part of the problem...bad behavior.

The key thing for me is that there is no evidence of remorse. It's all everyone else's fault. We cannot allow anyone with that attitude to have access to editing tools. A block serves that purpose.

Here it says "banned", but on the user talk page it says "blocked". -- Brangifer (talk) 05:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

That's what I thought at first too, but the blocklog [6] also says "banned". --Obsidi (talk) 10:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Obsidi. It's confusing when it states banned on the ANI, and indef block on the user talk page with no template or instructions for a new user to appeal. The ANI initially requested a topic ban which, if my tally is correct, was 3 in favor, 4 opposed to a ban. The Indef Block was not initially requested but it got 3 in favor and 1 oppose. There was 1 iBan. I don't understand why new users are blocked so quickly because most never really get an opportunity to understand what they did wrong. Why not a warning if the new user agreed to mentoring? We are losing good editors before they even get a shot at understanding guidelines and policy. I've watched several get the boot in the short 8 months I've been at it. Atsme☯^Consult 19:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Atsme, Djcheburashka was warned and advised repeatedly by many editors in many venues. They had plenty of opportunities to learn, accept the advice, promise to do better, bow their head, and admit that when they were surrounded by so many editors, all pointing at them and saying they were doing something wrong, that maybe they really were in the wrong, but Djcheburashka's response was always to put the blame on others, attack them, and say that everyone else was wrong. There was never any remorse or admission of wrongdoing. (You might be able to find an exceptional instance of remorse, but that would be an example of the exception that proves the rule.) That course of action always ends badly here. No one here is perfect, but we did not see a positive learning curve. A bit of humility goes a long ways, but they lack that character trait. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

A user that votes for something less then a siteban can be assumed to not agree with a siteban. Its crazy to say that those that supported a topic ban were not saying that disagreed with a siteban (after all who needs a topic ban if you are sitebanned?). --Obsidi (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

There is some reasonable confusion here, only though in the use of the word banned, which does have a colloquial meaning here at wikipedia, instead of the interchangeable use often used all over the internet of block and ban. There shouldn't be any confusion on the consensus. When they said there was a consensus they were not referring to a vote count but the actual arguments made by the editors involved in the ANI. I do think they meant block instead of ban. They will certainly clear that up soon. Now an indefinite block isn't a permanent block. It last one minute or 30 years, simply put as long as needed WP:INDEF.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't really surprised to see intervention come out of the ANI thread, but it did surprise me that Ricky read it as supporting a siteban. But at the same time I'm not all that surprised. Djcheburashka stirred up a lot of controversy and made quite a few enemies in the short time they were active here (six months-ish? going by memory) and at the time I assumed that Ricky had looked into it more than just reading the ANI thread and acted with admin discretion. I had (have?) hope for the editor but maybe the WP:STANDARDOFFER is warranted here. I'm interested in seeing what Ricky posts in response. Ivanvector (talk) 23:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Although I did just notice Djcheburashka was not added to Category:Banned Wikipedia users like I would have expected had he really been sitebanned, so maybe this was just meant to be a block. (although maybe that was just forgotten?) --Obsidi (talk) 01:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Clarification_.2FClosure_review_of_Siteban_of_Djcheburashka". Thank you. --Obsidi (talk) 17:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I corrected it to a block not a ban and provided a further explanation here. This discussion should continue in a single location so please decide where before going forward. I would suggest closing the ANI discussion and moving it to User_talk:Djcheburashka for the future but I don't care. Meanwhile it is the day before Thanksgiving and I honestly saw nothing that is so urgent it requires an immediate report to ANI. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I closed that discussion as resolved, and am fine with continuing any conversation at User_talk:Djcheburashka. (I waited 38 hours before I opened the ANI thread, I know you are probably very busy and I was hoping some other admin could help me figure things out) --Obsidi (talk) 21:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not a matter of busy. It's just only I can really answer what I was thinking (and it was clearly in error) but I see a lot of 'there's other stuff we didn't bring up that he somehow should have known' which is fine but to me, conduct is evaluated subject-matter neutral. As to above, I would even be willing to shorten the WP:STANDARDOFFER time period. I'm open-minded. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)