"

 About the topic ban of Wilhelmina Will from DYK 

I've been trying to figure out what happened with the AN/I report that led to a topic ban for WW. Normally, when the community makes a decision that requires admin tools to implement or enforce, there is a closing administrator. I've reviewed the report and have summarized it at User:Abd/Will ANI incident (at this point, this is a long summary, not a short one, I will prepare a short version if it's later needed.) And I just realized that there never was a close to that report, which explains why WW wasn't informed, that would normally be a task undertaken by a closing admin. Now, you later described the report as a consensus to topic ban, and you did inform WW, but you reported it passively, as if it had not been your decision, you were just the messenger.

I easily understand how it happened, and assume nothing but good faith on your part, but there was a fundamental error here. The community does not make decisions by vote. Rather, it uses agents, public servants, who make decisions after review of community comment, but the servants are responsible for reviewing the arguments, and vote count isn't the issue except as a very rough guide, and I've seen many decisions, made by highly competent administrators, which ran directly contrary to a large majority of votes, based on a review of the arguments.

So I'm asking you if you did this. Did you review the arguments and decide that they were cogent and that a topic ban was in the best interests of the project. If you did not, would you do so now and ""close,"" i.e., take personal responsibility for the decision? In which case you could then inform us as to the length of the ban, or any other conditions imposed. And there would then be, if another administrator wishes to lift the ban, a responsible admin to contact?

I will tell you that my now much more detailed review of the facts leads me to the conclusion that a ban wasn't justified at all, there was no disruption at DYK from Wilhelmina Will, and there was very minor misbehavior elsewhere which only gets connected with DYK because of her presumed motive. A general conclusion from those who understand DYK seems to be that there is nothing wrong with the motive, and that what WW did was simply some minor foolishness, of a kind that would normally pass almost unnoticed, and which she has not continued. So, in spite of her seeming disregard of warnings, she clearly hasn't disregarded them, she just quietly complied. Yes, she should learn to respond, it would help. But I have never seen a response to a warning as being a condition for not blocking. The procedure is Warn. Wait for repeated offense. Block if repeated. Not Warn. Wait for promise to comply. Block if no promise.

There were several issues raised:
Mesodermchelys misbehavior: short term, over one or two days, 2 improper reverts to preserve word count. 3 edit summaries that express her personal reaction to Blechnic  which, after reviewing what he had done, I fully understand and sympathize with. She was foolish to make those edit summaries, but it wasn't disruptive, and it wasn't personal attack within the meaning given at WP:NPA, whereas she was under repeated PA within that meaning: an attempt to damage her reputation.
Copyright violations. Evidence was requested at ANI, but none was provided, links were given by Blechnic that showed nothing of the kind. He is now attempting to build a case on his Talk page  he now refers to all of her edits as crap, later amended to vandalism  and what he cited was a sentence in a seven-month-old article which, it turns out, she had noticed in the Sandbox and asked an admin if she could use it, and she failed to check for copyvio. The sentence was a direct copy. Maybe. Or was it that a web site later took the sentence from Wikipedia? I certainly don't know. Easy to fix. No pattern shown.
Incivility. But the example given, as far as I recall, was always back to the Mesodermochelys incident. And then reference was made to her lying about it, claiming that her leetspeak comment was really a note to herself about something else. This was a clumsy excuse that simply shows that she is naive. And which was harmless, except to her own reputation.
Accuracy of her articles. She has made mistakes. However, what I've seen with WW articles on scientific subjects is that, particularly if they are DYK nominated, whatever errors are in them are rapidly fixed. The articles aren't an obstacle to the creation of accurate content, rather they facilitate it, particularly by being DYK nominated. In other words, if there is, in fact, a problem here, DYK is part of the solution, not part of the problem. But, in fact, her articles are much better than the average new article on Wikipedia.

Thanks for your attention to this. You could confirm