Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive825

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Continued deletion of complaints about biased editing abuses[edit]

I strongly object to the removal of my complaints about abusive biased editing practices which I placed on the talk page of the article that the editor in question edits abusively most frequently, to serve as a warning to other editors and, I hoped, to request administrator action against the abuses: [1], [2], [3]. I ask that User:Cadiomals's attempt to censor my complaints and warnings be reverted, and that User:VictorD7 be appropriately sanctioned for the clear abuses documented in the section which Cadiomals thinks is okay to delete.

I would also like some guidance about how to report such abuses in the future, please. EllenCT (talk) 07:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

See? Was it so hard posting your grievances here rather than on the Talk page of an article, where it is inappropriate and irrelevant? The first and foremost rule from WP:TALK is that article Talk pages exist for the sole purpose of discussing direct changes/improvements to the articles. Kudos for finding your way. Cadiomals (talk) 07:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Use user talk pages and, in extreme cases, noticeboards next time. Dark Sun (talk) 09:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Overall, what I'm seeing from EllenCT looks far more like tattletaling in order to 'win' a dispute than a sincere and well-founded attempt to help an editor with their behaviour. I'm not 100% sure that the removed section strictly matches the rather narrow criteria by which one can remove talk-page comments, and WP:Hatting the section might have been a better choice, but it's at best borderline and Cadiomals' action seems to have been a good-faith attempt to stop a dispute or at least point it to a more appropriate venue. No action against Cadiomals is warranted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Ellen failed to even try to make a rational argument that I should be "sanctioned". Her low quality, POV pushing edits have been reverted by several different editors across multiple articles, not just me (e.g. [4],[5], [6]). In this example: [7], [8] she was reverted after trying to covertly slip in highly contentious economic/taxation material already under discussion (and ultimately rejected by strong consensus) with a totally misleading edit summary that pretended she was simply undoing some small, recent change to a different section. It's difficult to maintain assumptions of good faith under such conditions. Editors have been extremely patient with her for a long time, but she's been a persistently disruptive influence on multiple articles and Talk Pages, and perhaps it's time to examine whether she should be sanctioned. VictorD7 (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) Sounds like we're in Australia again... Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 19:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
While commenting on this probably won't help relations in our current discussions, I do feel Ellen has a WP:TEDIOUS editing style and I'd welcome any review or intervention that might help us become more productive. Morphh (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Though I will certainly not vouch for much of VictorD7's past behavior, EllenCT is being hypocritical plain and simple for reporting Victor's "biased editing abuses" when she also has quite the history of her own "biased editing abuses". I'm less familiar with her activity on other articles, but in United States she has a history of either childish attempts at circumventing discussion or being a general drag on the discussion and consensus-building process (though Victor too has a history of being confrontational and disagreeable). I think Ellen is misguided in how United States is supposed to look based on WP:SUMMARY, and often has a hard time letting things go even when consensus has repeatedly shown itself to be against her. At least she has stopped trying to insert content into the article without first consulting Talk, but she continues to be a general drag in progress there by continuing her advocacy of irrelevant content, and the recent off-topic dispute crossed the line to merit removal.
I don't think much more can reasonably be done except telling both of them to cool it. To prevent drawn out back-and-forth, instead of directly addressing one another, they should only seek opinions and consensus from others from now on. Otherwise, Ellen's post to this noticeboard was just a failed attempt at trying to make herself look like a victim. Cadiomals (talk) 08:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Of course I reject any attempt to equate me with Ellen (how about the other people debating her, including yourself?), especially one based on no evidence. A baseless "pox on both their houses" attitude is intellectually lazy at best. All my edits and posts have been in good faith, and I've always been willing to rationally and civilly discuss any of them. VictorD7 (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

VictorD7 is trying to include his political opinions by relying on non-peer reviewed sources, while the sources he complains about my inserting in opposition are peer reviewed and secondary. He has also been following my contributions to other articles, harassing me in an attempt to try to make that work out somehow. I have only asked that VictorD7 be encouraged to edit without conflicts, while he has asked that I be "banned from Wikipedia". I ask that VictorD7 be instructed to either edit based on peer reviewed sources or stop editing on the topics where we disagree. EllenCT (talk) 03:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

False on all counts. I've repeatedly bent over backwards to make good faith efforts to engage you on the issues where we've disagreed, and I'm not the one who ran to report you to admin (and falsely at that). VictorD7 (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Having commented on the substantive issue at Talk:Taxation_in_the_United_States#Fourth_opinion, I would suggest that you two cool it a bit and refrain from the personal insults for a while. Also avoid trading long biting exchanges on the talkpage if you can. Maybe take it to talk to clarify the confusion or even have a phone conversation. You both seem to be capable of making rational contributions to the encyclopedia. I'll admit I lean left (and believe that reality has a left-wing bias), so I'm favorably inclined towards Ellen's position (and have seen quite a bit of good work from her) and naturally a bit suspicious of self-described conservatives. I suppose that goes both ways but the bottom line is that the US taxes as a whole are not really very progressive (due largely to the payroll taxes exemption starting around 100k and the 15% long-term capital gains / qualified dividends rate) and it is difficult to paint the picture otherwise, although this seems like a valiant attempt. II | (t - c) 07:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what the point of the political commentary here is, but I'll note that in the section he linked to I and another editor politely corrected II's mistakes, and today he politely conceded "looks like I was wrong". That's the way discussions among editors are supposed to unfold. It's when Ellen gets involved that all too often rationality and civility go out the window. VictorD7 (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't entirely agree with this characterization. I was wrong about some federal tax numbers, but I think there is still a legitimate argument to be made about corporate tax incidence assumptions, which are highly debatable per e.g. Corporate Tax Incidence and Its Implications for Progressivity (2009) and How TPC Distributes The Corporate Income Tax (2012). It's not clear to me that either of you are really engaging that well on this point exactly either; seems to have just descended into insults. In addition, I lean towards agreeing with Ellen on the omission of the effects of state and local taxes as it seems somewhat arbitrary (and hence potentially politically-motivated) although I understand that there may be data limitations. As far as your political self-identification, it's a reasonable heuristic. Nobody should be using Wikipedia as a political platform but in my seven years floating around here I've seen more conservatives run afoul of that then the other way around. By definition, a heuristic is not perfect, but if you associate yourself with a group where the majority don't believe in anthropogenic climate change, evolution, etc then you should expect to receive additional scrutiny. The economics wikiproject is probably overrepresented with libertarians and it's a bit of a problem. Also, keep in mind that we don't always do things based on majorities around here. It's !votes, not votes. If a majority of people !vote to change evolution so it says it's just a theory and the world is 13,000 years sold similar to Conservapedia, the one person dissenting (and hopefully reverting) is in the right. II | (t - c) 00:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
All I did was quote your edit summary to illustrate the reasonable give and take found in healthy editor discussions. I don't recall Ellen ever saying something like that, no matter undeniably wrong she's proved to be on a particular point. She keeps essentially insisting that 2+2=5 (or sometimes "green"). While I disagree with much of what you say (especially your 180 degree wrong liberal/conservative run afoul claim) and would love to debate you on various political issues, this page is hardly the proper place. VictorD7 (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

VictorD7 says that it is "false" that he has been trying to push his political point of view using cherry picked non-peer reviewed sources against my attempts to prevent him from doing so using peer reviewed secondary sources. If he wishes to substantiate that claim, he has had ample opportunity to try to find a single peer-reviewed source which agrees with the several non-peer reviewed sources he has found. Again, VictorD7 should be instructed to use peer reviewed sources or refrain from editing when he can't find any which agree with him, please. And Cadiomals should be instructed to treat those who are trying to encourage other editors to rely on accurate sources instead of pushing their POV with inaccurate sources with respect, please. Thank you. EllenCT (talk) 04:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

As usual, you provide no evidence. You're a serial partisan soapboxer who's annoyed even some editors who share your politics, and, far from cherry-picking, I and other editors used all available sources, including the ones you posted, to systematically debunk all your claims.VictorD7 (talk) 07:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Further harassment by VictorD7[edit]

VictorD7 continues to follow my contributions, harassing me with reverts without even discussing them on the talk page. Can anything be done about this? EllenCT (talk) 07:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually I followed Morphh there because I had asked him a question on another page and was checking to see if he was active. And I explained my revert of your massive, undiscussed, POV stuffing change. Mutiple editors have reverted it, so please discuss it before trying to make it again. Also, please stop harassing me with false accusations and wasting admin's time. I was editing at the United States page long before you showed up, and our paths have crossed on some other articles since then because we apparently have an overlapping interest in tax/fiscal matters. I couldn't care less about whatever unrelated articles you post on. VictorD7 (talk) 07:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe you. You started following me and reverting without discussion long before my most recent interactions with Morphh. The evidence is in the diffs shown as deleted in the diffs from my first post to the parent section. You only had a few edits to articles other than United States before then. EllenCT (talk) 07:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I had been on Wikipedia less than a year before you showed up at the US article, and my first interactions with Morphh were on my user page after I edited Taxation in the United States (none of which involved you). I've been looking up various related articles lately, but I don't think I had ever been on the TP and EI page until several hours ago, after following him and finding you (big shock) rewriting a massive chunk of the article at once without discussion and making a mockery of NPOV. Frankly I've demonstrated a great deal more knowledge than you have on these topics and I have at least as much right to be on those pages as you do. I've also always been willing to discuss edits and reverts, and have done so, as I just linked. VictorD7 (talk) 08:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
You only just found your first peer reviewed source, you had to go back to 1962 to find it, and it's nowhere near secondary. Essentially all your edits before I came along were POV pushing on United States. If you can find the secondary literature, I will consider upgrading the esteem, but I would need to see a clear willingness to undo your past inaccuracies. Are you ready to make that kind of a commitment? EllenCT (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I've quoted from numerous peer reviewed sources, including your own source that you misread that described the 1962 paper as "seminal" and explained how it's shaped scholarship since, I quoted all that stuff a long time ago (along with similar material from the CBO and even your own ITEP source that started this whole debate), you have yet to find a single source (peer review or not) supporting any of your claims, the "peer review" tangent is irrelevant anyway since your assumptions about your ITEP chart's (which isn't any more peer reviewed than the sources contradicting its figures) methodology were refuted by quotes and numbers from its own site, I had branched out to other articles before you came along and will continue to do so, and all of my edits have been quality and in good faith while you've got numerous editors admonishing you for serial POV pushing and tendentious behavior. At one point you even claimed labor and consumption were the same thing, causing astonished editors to patiently try to explain the difference to you. Do you still believe that? It's hard to tell since you never seem to acknowledge facts posted by others or admit you're wrong when proved incorrect. That's especially problematic since you're demonstrably wrong a great deal of the time. VictorD7 (talk) 02:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Further harassment by Morphh[edit]

Now User:Morphh, who VictorD7 recently convinced that the Tax Policy Center web site was peer reviewed, culls graphical information to try to hide the truth: one summary argument for how many graphs? Complete disregard for WP:BRD in a pathetic attempt to avoid facing the fact that he's been misled by the likes of VictorD7. Sad, but not a lost cause. I ask that Morphh be instructed to abide by WP:BRD. EllenCT (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

In support of Morphh, I have also noted and reverted EllenCT's continued use of misleading graphs, even after she has participated in long discussions, and RFCs that have found the same material lacking. For instance, her insertion of this graph [9] was done weeks after long discussions on the Progressive tax talk page, including this RFC Talk:Progressive_tax#RFC_on_graph_linking_top_marginal_tax_rates_to_job_growth in which the vast majority of editors found the graph misleading and WP:SYN.Mattnad (talk) 01:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Ellen is also seriously warping both my and Morphh's views, not that this content discussion is pertinent to this page. I'm pretty sure neither of us has ever claimed the "web site" is peer reviewed. I'm not even sure what that would mean. VictorD7 (talk) 03:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Ellen, it is courtesy for you to notify someone if you lodge a complaint against them on ANI. I just happen to be watching this page and noticed the accusation. Again, another personal attack. The summary you linked to includes two discussion threads which cover all three graphs. So the discussion is already taking place and in some cases concluded. Admittedly, not the best summary, but you're fully aware of the debates regarding all three graphs. They were removed on the main articles where they were discussed and I thought it appropriate to remove them, at least temporarily until a consensus determines inclusion, for all the various articles that were unaware of the contention. If these were specific articles about the graph topic, then I would say let's teach the controversy and include the proper balance, explain the criticism, but many of these are higher level articles or ones that have little relevance to the graph's content. Morphh (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Also, I'm not sure how I'm the one harassing Ellen. She followed all my edits and reverted them, not the other way around. I then reverted with a link to the discussion (requested in her summary), which was already taking place (and had taken place on several articles). She then reverted again. And to Victor's point, I never said the TPC website was peer reviewed. In fact, I said the opposite regarding institute websites and pointed to peer reviewed methodologies. I don't say this as a point to start a discussion, but as defense to the original charge. Morphh (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Is it ok to call other editors a "rat", as long as it is done in Hebrew?[edit]

Closed without immediate action, but with stern words from User:Georgewilliamherbert. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gilabrand (talk · contribs) and I edit in the same area (Israel/Palestine), and we have not always agreed on matters, to put it diplomatically. Latest about a month ago, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive142#Gilabrand.

However, Gilabrand has always called me by my correct nick, Huldra, earlier. (See e.g. this )

This last month they have suddenly started calling me "Hulda" (like here, and here)

Which, apparently means "Rat" in Hebrew. Comments? Huldra (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, Hulda can refer to a number of things, including an opera, but I would caution Gilabrand to avoid Mickey Mouse games with an editor's name. It's not very collegial. Jonathunder (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. This is childish, and Gilabrand should be warned that such behavior is unbecoming of Wikipedia editors. Hopefully that will put an end to it. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 17:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, he doesn't need to be calling any editors by any names other than their User Names, so this is not okay, no matter the meaning or language. Sergecross73 msg me 17:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

This isn't the first time that Gilabrand has engaged in playing juvenilishly with user names to wind other editors up: in the past she has used her own signature to try to get at Nableezy much as NoCal100 used his username to wind up another editor. Examples of Gilabrand's signature altered to read 'Nopleazy': 1, 2, 3, 4. Instances of me asking Gilabrand to desist: 1, 2, 3. Examples where Gilabrand altered her signature to read 'Yespleazy' instead: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
As mentioned in the recent AE case concerning Gilabrand, she was the subject of an indefinite ban in the Arab-Israeli topic area, which was eventually lifted with the warning that Gilabrand is further reminded that any future problematic editing following the removal of editing restrictions will viewed dimly. The recent AE case was closed with no action taken except another warning: "Gilabrand has been notified, warned of the heightened scrutiny and limits to how far things can go before they would become actionable, and encouraged to edit in a somewhat more neutral manner if possible" (see also Gilabrand's talkpage: "Gilabrand will be notified that their edits are under heightened scrutiny due to their personal opinions and editing trends on these topics, and that moderation and neutrality will be helpful to avoid further investigations as to whether their edits are becoming single purpose, soapboxing, or battleground type edits and subject to the Arbcom sanctions.")
Given that Gilabrand has had several strong warnings about her behaviour, one given very recently, perhaps this incident deserves to be taken a bit more seriously.
    ←   ZScarpia   18:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

This is unbelievably ridiculous. I have nothing against Huldra - we have worked on many articles together to fill in the history of villages about which little is know. "Hulda" is simply a typo. But now that she mentions it, it is actually complimentary. Hulda is the name of a Biblical prophetess. --Geewhiz (talk) 19:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Not true. Here is a couple of Gilabrands posts about me from just this year: "By the way, I am keeping a log of your aggressive comments to me, which is growing quite long. Another one was added today on Hittin", and "clean up but leave Huldra's threat for posterity". Please also read my entry in the last AE: it was after that that Gilabrand suddenly started "misstyping". Coincident? Huldra (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
So you suddenly start repeatedly making the same typo in the name of a user you have been acquainted with for some time. Are there any other cases where you have done the same?     ←   ZScarpia   19:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Could you be more careful in the future to avoid creating even the appearance of an insult (though none may be intended)? If so, we are done here. Jehochman Talk 19:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I will try to type more slowly... Funny how stuff can be misinterpreted.--Geewhiz (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Funny, isn't it? For example, your response when she asked you about it on your talk page: "My wife and kids had a good laugh over your detective skills. Maybe they will accept you to the FBI." That might be misinterpreted as sarcasm. Typing slowly might not be a bad idea if it helps you think about how things will be read. Jonathunder (talk) 19:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Can we get an agreement from both of you to only refer to the other by correct username and only with respect (even if you don't like each other)? If so, I hope we can close this. Jonathunder (talk) 20:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

In view of this being a repeated pattern (compare the Nableezy-refs above), please do not close this yet. As noted: Gilabrand has posted untrue statements, IMO. And was 'Nopleazy' also a typo? And how many "warnings" does an editor receive before it has any consequences? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Gilabrand makes here above as if she would be sorry for what she did but her initial answer on her talk page proves she is not sorry at all, at the contrary: [10]
This behaviour is in total disagreement with WP:NPA and the 4st pillar of wikipedia. In more of that, there is no content dispute between Huldra and Gilanbrand. This would show that Gilabrand acted because of other reasons (my mind: because Huldra is an Arab and Gilabrand an Israeli). That is not acceptable per WP:BATTLEGROUND. Gilabrand's should be blocked at least 1 week for this and she should receive a warning that she would be blocked indefinetely if she does this again.
Pluto2012 (talk) 23:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I suppose you realise that you make typos too? For example you misspelled "Gilabrand" as "Gilanbrand".--Toddy1 (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Pluto2012 should be blocked at least 1 week for calling Gilabrand "Gilanbrand", which means "Pig" in the Klingon language. Marokwitz (talk) 07:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • In answer to your question, no it isn't, because that is a personal attack pbp 20:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Question - how many times in the November-December timeframe did Gilabrand type your account name in a comment or response? I see the two misspelled examples above, how many were there total and how many of those were misspelled? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
    • To Georgewilliamherbert: AFAIK: she has only addressed me those two times this last month, misspelling my name each time. While she earlier always have spelled it correctly, (like here, back in 2008). Notice that her "misspelling" comes just after I have written very critically about her in the above mentioned AE. Compare it also to her spelling of Nableezy; another editor who she has disagreed with, Huldra (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

"The Prophetess Hulda: Her Message of Hope": [11] Perhaps it was meant as a compliment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.116.25.54 (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not know if she is sorry or not. We cannot mandate that. An agreement to call each other by proper names is all we can ask.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Sometimes I copy and paste names instead of typing them. This reduces the chance of the kind of error that Gilabrand/Geewhiz made about Huldra - but, if the typographic error occurs once, it means that it has the potential to be repeated many times. Maybe that is what happened here.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok. Without telepathy we are not going to get an actual final answer here. The history of name games (3 years ago, but extensive) and repeat of the "typo" make intentional attack credible, but I have typoed enough things to know accident is possible.
My current opinion - Gilabrand, when I closed the AE I made heightened scrutiny clear to you. That does not mean an end to AGF or understanding sbout innocent mistakes, but it puts a hard and firm limit on the number of question marks we can accept going forwards.
This incident, given the repeat and meaning as misspelled and blowing off rather than apologizing when called on it, is a serious question mark. One strike for that.
You don't have 'three strikes and you're out". I don't want to set up a legalistic limit or let you game this. This counts. I won't act based on this one, but AGF goes away. This kind of thing happens again and you don't apologize and strike or retract, will be bad.
Heightened scrutiny does not mean zero tolerance for error, but it does approach zero tolerance for screwing around. Your response here was about all the slack you are going to get from me. If you goof again, make it right, and be a lot more careful. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Hulda is a kibbutz in central Israel, and the name of a Jewish prophet, certainly not a pejorative. I'm shocked. This bogus ANI complaint is so childish and far fetched, it is almost sad. The Administrators' noticeboard should not be used for such clear and obvious harassment. Marokwitz (talk) 07:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

user:Lgcsmasamiya[edit]

Done. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive819#Lgcsmasamiya's patrolling, user:Lgcsmasamiya was banned from patrolling the new pages feed. Well a look at [[12]] shows that he is still doing so. I cannot see how he is doing it properly at that speed. Is he still banned? Can anything be done? Op47 (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Lgcsmasamiya was banned from page patrolling, and it looks like he is still doing it haphazardly. As someone who has had to clean up some of his messes, I think it's time to prevent him from further violating the ban.- MrX 18:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
ETA: It looks like he is not adding any cleanup tags to any of these articles. I'm going through them now to make sure there are not any copyvios or WP:BLP vios.- MrX 18:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Lgcsmasamiya blocked until they can demonstrate an understanding of, and a willingness to comply with, the guidelines and conventions involved with new page patrol. Tiderolls 19:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • This ban is not listed at WP:EDR yet. Should the topic ban on Lgcsmasamiya be put up there? Epicgenius (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes. I have added it. - MrX 7:12 pm, Today (UTC−5)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ChrisGualtieri again...(how many times has it been?)[edit]

Consensus is for an interaction ban between ChristGualtieri and Lucia Black. Lucia Black may be banned from any page in all namespaces if any individual administrator thinks that she is causing disruption. Lucia Black is also banned from filing a report at any administrative noticeboard. If something needs to be reported, she can ask an individual administrator. There is strong opinion that Lucia Black is wearing on the community's patience. The diffs provided do not seem to support Lucia Black's accusation of personal attacks. Repeatedly taking someone to ANI without strong evidence is simply going to desensitize the community to that person's behavior and will eventually lead to a boomerang on the OP. Complainants should not seek every opportunity to raise flags but choose their complaints seriously and wisely so as to ensure the community is given an opportunity to make a thoughtful decision.--v/r - TP 18:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Since my last block, I've been extra careful not trying to make any more issues with another editor. Yet he still bombards me with personal attacks and incivility shown here (and keep in mind to be looking at my answer to see how obscure his responces are):

In fact, i had to forgive this editor, just so i can edit in peace, and this editor not hold any more of the "this editor hates me" crud or any other irrelevant matter that he likes to promote. And even after the showing of peace, this editor continues to make things personal between me and him and i'm simply tired of it.

And again, it doesn't end. This editor makes it so that he can't read my comments, and yet, chooses to target articles I've been involved in such as the reverting of Phantasy Star Adventure, Phantasy Star Gaiden, and Phantasy Star II Text Adventures. Intentionally ignoring every relevant comment needed to get the conversation going for these related articles. Its like an interaction ban, but instead, its affecting the progress of editing articles.

I've attempted to make peace and this editor continues to take everything personally and make the first attack. I know i brought him up in the past, but so have others and he manages not getting any action due to "repenting" right at the last second. i'm doing my best not to even provoke this editor, and yet he continues to make incivil remarks.Lucia Black (talk) 08:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

These difs are extremely weak examples. I don't see anything actionable here, all you're proving is that you two are still completely incapable of interacting with one another. I can't help but think your respective WikiProjects and AN/ANI are both very tired of your bickering, but that's a two way street. Sergecross73 msg me 13:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Unless you can find where i'm provoking him, or being directly uncivil, most of this is still his attempts at attacking on his part. And they add up quickly. thats the thing. most of those are from the same conversation, and you can see in my comments that i'm not trying to fight, and yet he continues to do so.
This constant back and forth should end. And I've already paid mine, and i'm making it so i don't come back here again with WP:BOOMERANG. yes the wikiproject and ANI are tired of this. But why not just do what needed to be done in the first place? Issues of him and his incivility still continued even when i wasn't involved. He manages to get saved by repenting, and apologizing, but in the end he continues to do so.
i don't find these weak because he makes it easy to make any situation escalate. and its still related to previous ANI of behavior (and even back then, it was closer to making action). the issue is more out of "response" to neutral comments. I'm doing my best to give him a neutral, and non-personal comment, and he continues to poison things. He calls it spitting in his eye, over something that simply isn't related to him personally. And continues to make accusations and poisoning discussions.
He's been saved before, i gave him peace offering, and he still treats things as its a personal agenda against him. And this should be proof enough that his previous apologies that he made in the past don't mean anything. And whenever he does this, he is the one disrupting the discussion, not me. But worst of all, is when he attempts to hide my comments so he doesn't read them, and yet chooses to get involved in a more debatable issue that i'm involved in. So its more incivility.
Me? i can work well with him, i'm monitoring my own comments so a topic/bully-one-way-interaction ban happens again. But, if he chooses to not lit up over every discussion. If i could bring up an entire case of history with him, i would, but this is what i have, and it should be enough. a lot of attacks being thrown. Incivility is clearly there, and there is alot of it even if you think its "weak"Lucia Black (talk) 14:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't think either of your are really being incivil, it's just the endless arguing between you two that is a problem. Most of those "personal attacks" are just him not agreeing with you, or saying you're wrong, which, true or false, I don't know, but they hardly constitute as an "attack". The only action I'd see as remotely plausible would be an interaction ban between you two, but I don't want to be pulled into this bickering any further, so I won't driving that effort.
I'll let others voice their opinion, but I can't see this going anywhere if those are the difs you're working with... Sergecross73 msg me 14:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

the personal attacks are constantly making it seem like i know nothing of the subject. and this goes on constantly. If such an interaction ban were to occur, this time i would prefer a two-way interaction.Lucia Black (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

  • This problem is all Lucia's doing I don't think I should be penalized for her abusive behavior that extends to nearly every editor she's ever interacted with. I doubt anyone will read this whole response because it contains so much evidence, but Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lucia Black/Link Bank is indicative of the editor's attitude. She's backing it up on Wikipedia and "another site", because she has no "word pad or memo" on her phone and "... if you don't give me trouble for a long period of time, i do end up deleting the info. but not truly deleted."[13] She made the ANI to justify her userpage that was previously cited as a violation of WP:POLEMIC at her talk. Which her response was to try and make friends, and saidforgive and forget. Than started it again with a perceived slight from Sergecross[14] Though all these issues that are "so bad" are actually based on Lucia's WP:RANDY behavior that infuriated and irritate me to no end, with a deliberate intention to harass and undermine and constantly abuse me. These actions got her the topic ban and interaction ban prior. She broke her interaction and topic ban no less than five times and got blocked for it. I find it inexcusable that an editor will present false issues and announced the intention to fail a GA and altered a previous comment I had already responded to.[15] Lucia misrepresented official sources as "fanbooks" and other issues in the GAN. @Huon: got involved in it and has tried to help, but I walked away from Lucia in that GAN and she keeps finding new ways to start a fight. After Sven's RFC she started another discussion including yet another attempt to override a merge RFC that was closed only a month ago by Armbrust that had a clear consensus to not merge the article. Which @Catalan: also mentioned was WP:GAMING since no one wants to split up a GA. Lucia made the discussion out of the blue because "I boldly split things" and wanted to get consensus to split or not to split One Piece and Naruto, something which no one wants to split. It is a hypothetical "what-if" that goes against the community RFC that Sven made stating it would be on a "case by case" basis and Lucia needs to "test that consensus". She argues with the other Ghibli editor with drama like "you're just picking fights now. one more word of it, and i will delete the ENTIRE thread." Her constant WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, bad faith accusations, edit warring and general lack of knowledge of the topic area makes it all the more irritating. I mentioned that this is a WP:RANDY situation, I am a scholar in the anime and manga field, but I simply have no patience for an editor who inserts blatantly false material, misrepresents sources and will purposely try to "destabilize" a GAN to feed their need for attention. Lucia Black does more arguing and fighting than actual work and I've said it repeatedly, that I don't have the time to waste on this. I don't think anyone else should either; it's just noise. If anyone needs me, I'll be tending to my GANs until the next time Lucia decides to overturn consensus - a pattern which has been repeated since her first topic ban and interaction ban. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure Chris meant me when he referred to a user "Catalan" in the above comment. Calathan (talk) 18:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Chris, theres a whole mess you are hiding. like the fact that you also played in a part in stalling discussions due to this RfC, now that it didn't go in your favor, you're trying to make it seem like its not relevant. other editors there had no complaints and again, was clarified that its not gaming the system. afterall the RfC was both yours and ryulong's idea and it was indeed the outcome of articles such as bleach and Dragon ball. Huon even recaps to say that the discussion was indeed halted for the sake of the RfC.

ALso, if you noticed, none of my coments toward you are in any way "incivil" but you choose to continue and claiming "battleground" behavior. Even knowledgekid also acknowledges that there was not, and that you are the one throwing the first "jabs"Lucia Black (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

You guys both should realize that they massive blocks of text are probably part of the reason why your issues never get resolved. Why should "volunteer" editors spend their time wading through all of that mass of text? There's no way there is going to be a consensus forming when there's so much info being jumbled together. Which is fine this time, I guess, since I don't believe any action is required, but still, going forward, you both should keep this in mind... Sergecross73 msg me 16:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, Chris. stop derailing discussions. the oens you jsut sourced shows how much you derail things, and choose to become incivil.Lucia Black (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Er, I was referring to both of you, really... Sergecross73 msg me 16:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
like i said, i can work with this editor, if he chooses to be civil, and compliant. And he makes a fuss, takes things personally, and chooses to escalate a situation and derail it. if you have any evidence of me doing that after my ban. by all means provide it, but i've been doing from what i believe is my my all to avoid causing any more trouble, and yet, it follows me.Lucia Black (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Nuclear Option: There are 2 options and 2 options only. The first is to let this perpetual Ryulong-ChrisGualtieri-Lucia Black drama-pot keep simmering and boiling over (thereby granting an ice pick lobotomy to the entire community) or to finally deal with this drama magnet once and for all. If it's not obvious, I advocate for some very heavy handed sanctions to be placed on all 3 users as they can't interact positively with each other or within the same topic space. Recalling, of course, the last time that Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri disputed to ANI they were withing milimeters of topic and interaction bans.Hasteur (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't drag me into this bullshit Hasteur. Chris and Lucia's dispute with each other predates my (resolved) dispute with Chris.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Mind not changing other editor's talk page statements M'kay? And you were already dragged in from the statement by Lucia Black at 16:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC), you were just never notified about it. Hasteur (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Well I don't want any part of it and I've done nothing except remove the link. I've no dog in this fight.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Problem is that the ANI's are more consistent with Chris alone more than with Ryulong and I individually. he managed to save himself several times, and its simmers because action should've taken place along time ago. THere is alot more that this editor gets away with, and part of it has to do with thinking he knows best even when a bold edit is reverted, and then only uses BRD rule when its convenient. but if you take action now, i would be serving a second ban when I've already cleaned up most of my act. Ryulong, although made "peace" with ChrisGualtieri, both mutually avoid each other for a time. But i don't have that luxury. every edit i make is considered an attack to this editor, and i'm not the only editor in the wikiproject to think so. And the links provided shows that the majority he's the one picking the fights. and even then you can see in those edits i'm trying to keep it civil.Lucia Black (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Questionable motivation[edit]

Was the only reason this was brought up because of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lucia Black/Link Bank this? Yesterday, an editor nominated her subpage (which hosts all her difs about Chris) for deletion due to it being WP:POLEMIC, and not using the links in a timely manner. The next day, she brings this weak case to ANI? I feel like this discussion was only brought up to justify that page's existence and avoid it being deleted. Its an awfully big coincidence at least... Sergecross73 msg me 16:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

you could make arguments about that. but since i already found a site to help me keep track and be able to save them, its of little concern to me whether it gets deleted. The key was to save the recorded incivility in a place where i can keep track. and i did confirm that i was going to use the information quite recently, and that's regardless of the outcome. I've restored the information pretty recently, and that should be taken a sign of me taking action, and Huon just happens to pick up on it the moment i restored it and decides to MfD (and seems to only act when it invovles ChrisGualtieri). So as you can see, it's not that the ANI notice came at a convenient time to protect the Miscellaneous page, its more that when i'm making advances to put it to use, Huon decides to put it up for MfD. and even so, i find it a tad ridiculous to bring these "recent" issues up for the sake of protecting one page.
My issues for ChrisGualtieri are real, and many other editors hae noted it in the past.Lucia Black (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
And this is why your restrictions should've been indefinite. Although Chris may be causing a problem, Lucia, you are the one creating a page that violates WP:POLEMIC and WP:POINT and is now going back to the same problem behavior of ranting at ANI's door about Chris. Seriously, Lucia cut the crap unless you want to have an indefinite block. Sportsguy17 (TC) 17:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
In that case, I request Lucia request speedy delete (post {{db-u1}} on the page). NE Ent 17:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal[edit]

Closing a proposal started by me in favor of one of two proposals below, since this proposal is not gaining traction and has degenerated. (NAC) Sportsguy17 (TC) 00:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am formally proposing based on the diffs above, her constant frivolous AN & AN/I reports, and other WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviors that Lucia Black is indefinitely blocked until she demonstrates that this behavior will not continue.

  • Support -- as nom. Enough is enough. ChrisGualtieri doesn't deserve this and neither does anyone else. The fact that she got away with a single 48 hour block when she breached her restrictions daily astonishes me and she is exhausting patience with these games. Sportsguy17 (TC) 18:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
@Sportsguy17: If you're starting your conversation with "this is why your restrictions should've been indefinite" and admitting Chris is at fault too, then by no means are you having a fair opinion here. You're still admitting that Chris is causing trouble and you're trying to make something not as clear, look like it broke the biggest rule of them all. and quite frankly, thats what bothers me about ANI. that they admit theres an issue, and choose to not act on it for another, and intentionally over-exaggerate. and i will inform you on why its exaggeration at least for this instance:
WP:POLEMIC allows such a page to exist in the chance of it being used in a timely manner, and again i had a system set up so that it would be "timely" or set up to be timely to ones eye (again no number is put and so you can't make this out as a clear violation). if the issues died down, then i would remove them from the list, but if the editor then chooses to continue some time soon, it comes back along with the new incidents that made it come back (obviously, i'm not going to bring up an issue that happened 5 years ago if the same issue comes again. it wouldn't be "timely). The system is simple, can be considered to be used in a timely manner, and one can say "not violating any policies". And i say that because there's no distinction on what can be defined "timely". If the information dies down, i don't use it. simple as that.
if you don't agree, and consensus believe its not timely. then it can be closed. no big deal. banning me "indefinitely" for a policy that makes no clear distinctions and can easily be misinterpret? You have your thoughts set out for restrictions to be "indefinite" from the start and from before, so its not like you're looking for a good reason. you're just looking for a reason in general. Be realistic here, and take the situation for what it is. The Policy makes no clear distinction. but even so, i did my best to keep it timely, and you can't block me indefinitely for even trying. that would just be pretty messed up thing to do.
And no, this isn't WP:POINT. like i said, the use was going to be quite recently, but Huon MfD the page on the same day that i restored information that i intended to use regardless of the MfD within this time frame, so now it looks like i'm making a pointy-edit to keep the link bank (despite making it clear i found a site that allows me to save the information without the hassle of interpreting "timely") rather than this being already taken a course of action and Huon decides to intervene.
Also, i'm not going to dicuss this any further. you want me to nominate it for speedily deleting it, i will. but don't you dare try to make this to cover up what the purpose of all this, and this is to prove someone is being problematic. @Sergecross73: another editor, besides having an agenda of indefinite block over trivial things, just admitted another editor is being troublesome. So you really have to grasp the truths that are being said. if one editor believes he's being troublesome, then why not consider what i provided in a more serious matter.Lucia Black (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment if you also don't believe Chris "doesn't deserve this". lets keep in mind, Chris has also barely and i mean "BARELY" manage to salvage himself from action, several times by choosing to apologize when consensus is against him. here i'm providing information that even after a formal peace offering, the editor does not learn from it. He continues to hassle, makes things personal, and disrupts other discussions.

Again you've had this agenda, for a pretty good while, and your comment shows that you initially wanted this indefinitely from the start.Lucia Black (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment I would suppose if you're going to block one for such behaviors, then you can block the other for the same. KonveyorBelt 19:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment Not exactly, i wasn't "barely" saved. unlike Chris here, who manages to get away by merely apologizing, and again this is right when consensus has already agreed to take action. and since my block, i haven't made any uncivil remarks to him, and i try to stay on point and neutral. but again, he continues to be aggressive, and doing the exact same things that cause issues in the first place. We also have to consider that he barely got saved last time merely for the reasons that he repented. But here, it shows that A) i brought a peace offering and B) he's the one throwing it all away. Not only that but this is unavoidable. its not like i'm going to his talk page and harassing him or even provoking him. no, look in the links, and you can see discussions i brought up are being poisoned by his own aggressive and false accusations. Basically since then, he hasn't changed at all, and now he's made it clear he has no patience for me, and will not be changing anytime soon. And again, this is all from receiving pretty general neutral, civil comments.Lucia Black (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Because you're far more disruptive Lucia. Your behavior has convinced me that you're WP:NOTHERE. Chris wants peace and the ability to edit without you breathing down his neck all the time. At least Chris tries to come up with a solution, you just constantly abuse him and several other editors. Lucia, you've been nothing but a nuisance for a while. We've tried to come up with other solutions. A topic/interaction ban didn't work, since you violated it almost every day and you were lucky to have only been blocked once. So, Konveyor Belt this proposal is for Lucia only. Sportzilla | ROARR!! 19:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

You're inconsistent Sportzilla, you admit to him being problematic, but then try to paint him off as a saint by simply making up such things. you can see clearly that i am not "breathing down his neck" when you read the links yourself, he is the one making every incivil remark and not only that but he is the one responding to me, or the discussion i began, and rather keeping it on the content, he chooses to talk about the editors. don't believe me? it's right there Sportzilla. Either CHris has helped you in the past and you want to make it look like he's done nothing wrong (even though you've admitted to it) or you're just trying to make simple things look worst. and i challenge you to prove what you're saying is true (that i'm breathing down his neck) by using links. i'm not the one looking for this, afterall i gave a peace offering. But quite recently, he's been looking for me. Heck he even harrassed me on my own talkpage. and if you don't believe me, look at the links.Lucia Black (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Lucia, have you thought how Chris feels? He is trying to understand how you feel. I was on IRC with him and he said he was miserable. Lucia, why do you care about Chris at all? His conversation with me on IRC suggests he wants to be away from you. Please leave him alone. He wants to build content, not fight with a nuisance like you who is wearing down patience rapidly. Sportzilla | ROARR!! 19:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
WOw...so if someone just suddenly confides in you, then that means that they must be you're talking with the good guy. and anyone who is making this person feel miserable has to do with
And calling me a nuisance already, shows how one-sided this. There's two sides Sportzilla. if you want to stick with one side, so be it. but just because Chris confide with you in IRC, doesn't mean for a second that he's right in all this. The links says it all Sportzilla. did you actually look at them? He has done the opposite of avoid.
you're just bias Sportzilla, you're sympathizing over him for how he's feeling, not for whether he's right. and yes, maybe he has the right ideals, but everything so far has been against procedure. If you actually knew the stuff he isn't telling you.Lucia Black (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal 2[edit]

The most valuable asset Wikipedia has are mature editors who are able to contribute to the encyclopedia in a cooperative fashion. CG and LB (listed alphabetically) have demonstrated a chronic inability to do this. It is not the best use of other volunteer's time to mediate their interactions. I'm opposing any interaction bans because it is my believe that, rather than solve the problem, it would just be a matter of time before one is ratting out the other for some alleged violation. (They are much better at seeing the motes in the other eye than the beams in theirs.) If I thought I could get the votes, I'd propose site banning both of them right now. Seriously. Not kidding.
Instead I propose both be placed on community get along and figure it out probation. The next time either complains about, discusses, or mentions the other anywhere on on-wiki, regardless of provocation, any admin may indefinitely block them.NE Ent 19:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Support NE Ent 19:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
But look at where its heading. you simply want to control the situation by making you not hear a thing. That wont solve anything. and i know you're fustrated, but its not right to do it indefinitely. I've been blocked enough, and i taken extra care of my comments, but i'm not the one looking for chrisgualtieri. everything so far has just been thrown at me.Lucia Black (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Lucia, stop it. You are the one who has WP:BOOMERANGed this right back at yourself, by raising a frivolous ANI based on incredibly weak evidence, just to make a WP:POINT. I think everyone is sick to death of Lucia vs Chris. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment just make your vote, and don't start making snippy comments. WP:BOOMERANG over weak situation, is like catching the thief who stole a 100 dollar bill but wont act until its a 1000. HOw about you take a look at each one. the only way you canb ring a relevant WP:BOOMERANG is if i do the same thing Chris is doing. AKA being a hipocrit.Lucia Black (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Its a "boomerang" because you were the one who reported him, but sanctions are now being thrown at you. That's appropriate usage of the term. Sergecross73 msg me 19:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
You're admitting there is a bias perspective on who brings it up, not what the editor is doing. so theres a strong loophole here.Lucia Black (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
No, all I did was explain to you the concept of boomerang. I said nothing of "bias". Sergecross73 msg me 20:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Lucia, if you keep up this bullshit, then a WP:CIR (not NOTHERE, because I don't think that quite applies) indef block will be dropped on you. You will stop at nothing to attack Chris, or anyone who objects to your attacks. You need to change tack; instead of spending all of your energy on attacking one user, use it to improve your spelling, grammar and syntax, which are sorely lacking. At the very least, please proof-read your comments - doing this may also make you realize just how far out of line you are. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - As with what NE Ent said above, I don't think a ban would gather support yet, but I do think something very strict is necessary in order to stop this. All they do is clutter up every discussion avenue we have with endless arguing and bickering, and they do it in such as way (large rambling walls of texts) that its virtually impossible to follow along, let alone get any sort of third party input. They clearly can't handle themselves when it comes to calm discussion, so I feel like something like this proposal is necessary. Sergecross73 msg me 19:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: Although NE Ent's proposal sounds reasonable, we have to consider the fact that Lucia is always the one that drags Chris by the ears to these drama boards and is the one breathing down Chris's neck. Also, see her rants above. The thing is, Lucia's disruption is all across English Wikipedia. As I said, she is WP:NOTHERE. Sportzilla | ROARR!! 19:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • See this as an example of her causing disruption with someone besides Chris. Sportzilla | ROARR!! 19:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't disagree, but this proposal may be more likely to garner support. Also, if Chris is as tired of dealing with Lucia as you say, then this shouldn't be much of an issue for him, he can happily not interact with her anymore in this proposal. Sergecross73 msg me 20:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
If Chris was as tired as he was to interact with me, he would've simply avoided discussions that he felt were meaningless. On another note, the edits says it all, and you can see it by the links provided. What Chris claims (or what Sportzilla claims he claims) and what he says during a discussion doesn't compute.
That is only one link. agianst me, why not bring an entire ANI case regarding chris? you see, this can work both ways Sportzilla. I can show you what he's done, you can bring merely one link. which i guarantee you, thats all you're gonna find. But when it comes to me and Chris, i've been the civil one. and no one here can deny that. and if you dare try, i challenge you to bring links.Lucia Black (talk) 20:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
"No one can deny that"? Are you reading the same discussion as everyone else? Not a single person has come to your defense. Everyone's denying that. Sergecross73 msg me 20:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Do i really need number of votes to prove the truth when i already have it in number of evidence (links). The only link you've provided isn't even Chris-related. But I've provided the truth. I've provided that Chris has been an issue. And Sportzilla despite efforts to be one sided openly admits in the beginning that Chris is indeed being problematic. Just imagine if he was nuetral on the subject. how much his opinion would weigh in?
And you know this Serge, look how far its been to not only deny the links, but the very thing they prove (Chris always making the first attack) you say the exact opposite and without proof. I've done my part after my ban. And i'm honestly sick of the harassment by Chris. and yes, if Chris claims he's miserable, than i'm miserable as he is. maybe even more, since he's the one throwing the punches this time. Who's the one coming into my talkpage and making outrageous claims? Who has to humor him for the sake of civility?
Can you deny that? can you deny that Chris hasn't been aggressive and combatant? or do i need to bring editors who i know will vouche for this? that would be considered inappropriate right?Lucia Black (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes,you provided some "links", but as I've said, they have garnered zero support. Quite the opposite, they've only lead to a few comments about how "weak" they are, and some BOOMERANG accusations towards you. And yes, WP:CANVASSING would be inappropriate. Sergecross73 msg me 20:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support though I must add this is not due to bad faith on the part of Chris. I simply don't think sanctions on one side will gain any traction. But, as was mentioned, the diffs provided here don't incriminate Chris and in at least one case they seem to incriminate Lucia. Sucks getting hit by the boomerang but that's how it is, if she is serious about improving the project then this will be a motivation to commit to more productive interactions and I don't imagine Chris will have difficulty with such sanctions anyway but in the event that he does, it will be noticed. MezzoMezzo (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

They provide "non-insightful comments" on the subject, and continuous choice of making this about me (the editor) over the article (content). That is shown clear as day in these links. and it shows how Also Chris "enjoys" saying such sly remarks everywhere (i say enjoy because these sly remarks are purely "optional" and in no way needed to convey his thoughts). Another thing, is that rather than contributing to the vote, he makes radical accusations right away. Something that had garnered no comments yet, and already Chris classifies things as drama, continues to dismiss things saying he has no part of it, and continues to come back. And again this editor bombards the discussion with his own personal view. And at least one editor editor noticed the disruption during the discussion. i linked that aswell.

Either way, it shows a lot. weak doesn't mean "nothing" it shows that there is something there. even if all of it is considered weak, as a whole it shows something significant. the responce to my talkpage for such harrassment was based of a completely neutral discussion on a certain article. And he chose to flare up on my talkpage and talk about me having the last word, which was not the case.

And its not a complete stretch when you see these links. it would've been more relevant if i was able to link how close these discussions have been and how they relate to his behavior overall, but finding a way to link those and organize them, would be difficult to convey. but keep in mind these are all closely connected.. still, some accusations against me are merely small. and based not entirely on the issues of me and Chris. what you find with me would be small (i'm not even going to say that theres more than 2 out there) isolated events, and even then we are still talking about chris, none of which prove i have been provoking, combatant, or rude to him in the recent past.

But i'm simply tired of discussing this. his behavior will continue to be noted. If only i could bold the problematic areas during a preview so that you cansee what parts to focus on. (edit conflict)21:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) Actually, Lucia, Chris does not want to interact with you. How about you not follow ChrisGualtieri? On IRC, he was upset, he does not want to be near you or interact with you. And the diff provided by me shows that you attack more editors than only ChrisGualtieri. Also, I proposed an indefinite block, not a ban. The fact that we need to continue to comment shows how Lucia is a time sink and a net negative to the project and keeping her blocked until she understands how to collaborate with others civilly, calmly, and respectfully. Sportzilla | ROARR!! 21:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • That's a good point, Sportzilla. She's been arguing with every single person on this thread, posting entire books underneath each comment. The other person doesn't seem to be doing that. MezzoMezzo (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

@MezzoMezzo:this ANI itself proves nothing, and should not be taken into example. the flaw into WP:BOOMERANG is that even if there is evidence, rather than acting against both, or the one that indeed did the issue, the problem is still that one or both people get scott free. WP:BOOMERANG is an example. but to me it also allows people to ssee everything at face value. like i said, i provided links. and SPortzilla has felt so strongly merely because he had more interaciton with Chris. that's all. And my links do prove a point, and that is that what Sportzilla claims about ChrisGualtieri isn't true.Lucia Black (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC) Sportzilla, stop it. if you choose to believe chris on whatever he claims, that s on you, but don't force it onto me as if its the truth. the links don't lie. who made clear choices to interact with a certain editor he claims to interact with? the links says it all. even if one claims that it cannot incriminate, what you saying right now, isn't what chris is actually doing.Lucia Black (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

  • weak support, pending clarification though I think a topic ban of Lucia Black from the areas CG typically edits would be wiser. If those diffs are the worst of CG, there really isn't a basis for doing anything. He sounds frustrated but I'm not seeing actionable issues. That said, Chris IME has communication and ownership issues (which I think he's been improving on) so the two-way thing isn't utterly unreasonable. I'd like a clearer proposal though. Can they comment on each other's comments? AFAIK, this type of restriction hasn't been placed before and given the personalities, I foresee much boundary pushing. So getting things clear early would be helpful. Hobit (talk) 15:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Ah hell, I'll bite and throw my two cents at each diff.
  1. What is remotely provoking about Chris's question? (What the hell is "irrelevant provoking"?)
  2. Given that you argued in a circular fashion with regards to Chris's original point, I doubt anyone could blame him for dismissing you.
  3. Your declaration to make "a bold edit, and once you revert it, per BRD rule, you will have to continue to discuss it until gaining consensus, and that ultimately will cause problems with GA status per stability issues" is basically gaming WP:BRD. Something even Huon brought up.
  4. (Lumping all the "personal attack" diffs into 1 comment) Have to say that there is nothing remotely anything in NPA territory there.
  5. This is quite a "comment on the content not the editor" sort of post. Given your history, it seems about par for the course really and really doesn't fall into harassment territory. Somewhat pointed and uncivil, certainly, but harassing? No.
  6. False accusations of what? Filibustering? Hate to put it this way, but reading through the discussions that you and Chris took part in, all I saw was a lot of roundabout argument from you that didn't advance the discussion in any way. Can't say that's a false accusation.
  7. This is about the only one I could remotely agree with.
  8. A misrepresentation of what Knowledgekid87 actually said. They made a point that Chris threw the first punch, metaphorically speaking, and nothing about whether it was a false accusation.
All in all, this case is as weak as a termite infested house. Blackmane (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm willing to make an alternate proposal to see if maybe removing Lucia from Chris's main areas of editing and a mutual IBAN may solve things. And these sanctions need to be indefinite, mostly because Lucia cannot be trusted to follow a restriction. You may recall that she managed to violate the restricitons almost every day. I'm making an alternate proposal below. Sportsguy17 (TC) 19:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Yeah, the case is extremely weak, and if anything, the difs only go to prove that she doesn't fundamentally understand WP:NPA or WP:CIV. I honestly think she should be banned from ANI. If she truly has something that needs reporting, she could notify an Admin or something. Sergecross73 msg me 20:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 3[edit]

Here is a new proposal.
  1. Lucia Black and ChrisGualtieri are indefinitely banned from commenting on, at, or mentioning about the other. The normal exceptions apply. Persisting violations will result in escalating blocks up to and including an indefinite block.
  2. Lucia Black may be banned from any page in all namespaces if any individual administrator thinks that she is causing disruption.
  3. Lucia Black is also banned from filing a report at any administrative noticeboard. If something needs to be reported, she can ask an individual administrator.
All restrictions will be for an indefinite duration.
Here is the proposal. This is a new proposal as an alternative to 1 and 2. Part 1 is what should've happened a while ago. Part 2 is mostly because Lucia has also been seen to disrupt pages that don't concern ChrisGualtieri. Sportsguy17 (TC) 19:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Support Until the quantity of clue improves, there is little to no reason for volunteers at large to have to put up with the disruption and no-holds-barred argument style presented by Lucia. The other disputants have kept their noses clean so it seems we finally have the single irritant to cut from the flesh. Hasteur (talk) 21:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - everything I've said above. I prefer proposal 2, but approve of 3 as well. Sergecross73 msg me 00:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - This is the only way to ensure that I can continue to work in peace without further issues. It is terrible that I won't be able to get the articles to GA or FA, but this has been too much to handle. (Answered below.) I'm overwhelmed, miserable and exhausted. I ask, will there be a way in which I can request changes or submit improvements to a third party before making edits go live? I think this would head off additional problems. Either way, this needs to be done. Another ANI without this resolution will only result in another ANI and a future waste of time. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd imagine you'd be able to carry on with anything you've nominated/brought up to GA/FA standard, otherwise that doesn't really help anyone out. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • @ChrisGualtieri: -- Of course you would be able to continue with your articles. What this does is prevent Lucia from provoking. Since an admin can ban her from any page she is disrupting. If you both are editing a GA nominee or FA candidate, then this basically says that if Lucia is causing a ruckus, then an admin can remove her from the page/article in question. I also added per Sergecross73 that she is also banned from filing a report at noticeboards, since nothing good comes out of it and quite frankly, there is no good reason why she should still have access to these noticeboards, since most of what she does is filing frivolous reports about Chris. Sportsguy17 (TC) 03:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • What Hasteur says. (Though, I must say, I really enjoyed NE Ent's proposal.) Or just block right now, based on the rather clueless and certainly interminable rebuttals in this ANI thread. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I completely understand. I want to try to find a solution already. NE Ent's proposal sounds good, but personally, indeffing Lucia now may be it, or maybe this proposal. Either way, Lucia's responses say enough for themselves. Sportzilla | ROARR!! 03:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • NOt reallly. and i'm content with iths, because the only editor who causes trouble is Chris. And indefinitely locking me wouldn't even work SPortzilla, i've given you the chance to prove when i have been disruptive and abusive to Chris, and you continue to just burst out claims, rather than defending your point. If chris indeed isn't happy, he can avoid the conflict and claims.
  • I dont have time to be on top of every discussion here. And just trying to respond will result in several edit conflicts.Lucia Black (talk) 06:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Given that both Lucia and Chris agree with this. Although, I'd also suggest that any attempts to game these restrictions should be grounds for an immediate indef, such as getting in on an article just to prevent each other from nominating for GA or what have you. Blackmane (talk) 10:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment@Blackmane: fair enough. but if real issues are found in a GA< that doesn't stop either of us from bringing them up.Lucia Black (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • No. The GA process always involves 2+ people. If there are issues, they will be brought up by others. Judging by how much the terms "indef block" and "indef interaction ban" keep coming up over and over again in regards to your interactions with Chris, I'd say there's just about no possibility that your contribution would be considered constructive in such a scenario. Sergecross73 msg me 21:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
If a GA passes, and the issue is still there, it wouldn't stop me from bringing it up on the talkpage without interacting with Chris. keep in mind, this is brought up because Ghost in the Shell (film) in which i actually had a point and they did eventually fix the issue i brought up (the links are provided, and hshows how aggressive and slow it took Chris to finally realize). and even then, the GA nominator didn't even understand how the need for third party source worked. either way....if issues are brought up and there's a debate on it, that could be considered a fault in "stability" as it was used against kingdom hearts 358/2 days. So its not like i was making it up to stop GA.
BUt, so long as "i" don't interact with him, that doesn't stop me from bringing up issues in the article, and considering there's a huge lapse in the topics, i think this proposal is intentionally trying to find a way to indef block. obviously, leeway has to be done such as allow commenting in the same discussion.
otherwise, you're just trying to make it look like you gave us a chance to fix it.Lucia Black (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
No. No commenting in the same discussion. If you think that that's even a remotely possible outcome of this whole thread you really lack clue. If this proposal passes, your comment on a GA of theirs is grounds for a block in the eyes of most admins, I suppose--including this one. Drmies (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Drmies summed it up nicely. That's precisely the sort of gaming the restrictions that should be grounds for a block. The fact that you see this proposal as a way of "intentionally trying to find a way to indef block" is a symptom of the behaviour that the bans are supposed to stop. These restrictions must be as strict and as watertight as possible to stop any sort of wiggle room. Blackmane (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I concur with Drmies and Blackmane. Lucia still seems unware as to how she's in the wrong here, so there's no way she'd be able to act appropriately in the scenario outlined. Its for that reason that Lucia shouldn't even really want to be able to do that. It would almost certainly erupt into a discussion that would lead to her block. Sergecross73 msg me 00:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Gaming the restriction is more like displeasing the purpose who made it. You have to understand, that there is another form of gaming that can flourish by not allowing to even interfere in the discussion. that means, that if our vote is necessary (yes, necessary) to provide question on the topic. THat would mean.
Of course i would want this, if the conditions were met that we can both edit and not be stumped by "oh she reverted me...what the heck do i do now? i dont want to get blocked. so i'll have to deal with it. but the next time i see an edit of hers, i'll do the same and she wouldn't be able to a thing about it" it can easily happen.


i can interact with the same areas with Chris. So long as Chris doesn't flare up and makes ridiculous accusations, and just actually contribute to the discussion WITHOUT making comments on me. (which is why I've challenged everyone in the ANI to show where I've deserved this behavior after the ANI and even after i offered "peace"). But that's simply the problem. If you want to "dumb it down, so there's no leeway for you to hear a thing". the problem here is clearly shown....
It still needs to be fleshed out. If you dont want me and Chris interacting at all, one or the other can still edit the articles we've had. And therefore we would have to ignore BRD rules, or just allow the Bold edit until someone does so. Unless another editor makes it in, and we just praying from then on. Or! lets say we're voting for split or merge, and its pretty tied down, and need probably one more vote to help either side. From then on, its whoever gets there first, gets to keep staying.
THere is easily more animosity from this point on. and you're only making this proposal to never hear about it again. Which means, even if one manages to get break this rule, i'm not doubting that you will block both of us either way.Lucia Black (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Again, you seem to have failed completely to see the point. An interaction ban is very explicit.
  1. You cannot involve yourself in a discussion that Chris is in.
  2. You can edit in the same areas as Chris, and vice versa, but at no time can you both be in the same discussion at the same time. The fact that you cannot see the issues you are causing is the lack of clue that pretty much everyone has commented on so far.
  3. I'm fairly sure that Chris will see the sense behind leaving articles that you've performed major contributions to. You leave him to articles he has made major contributions on and in return he is expected to do the same. If something needs to be changed, then it will take however long it takes to be changed. There is no WP:DEADLINE.
  4. The fact that you think that a vote for a merge or split is based entirely on obtaining 51%/49% is a fundamental lack of clue about consensus. Also, that you think there are "sides" that have to win a vote is basic battleground mentality.
And the last, thankfully(!), you've touched upon the crux of the proposal and at last showing a glimmer of clue. The whole point is that no one wants to see you raise these petty squabbles on ANI anymore, we're all sick and tired of it. Blackmane (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

then rules 2 and 3 would be enough, this isn't really proposed as an interaction ban, or claiming it to be one. the second point you brought up makes no sense. its like you bring one point, and reason with it by something irrelevant.

and i'm prepared to do the same, but keep in mind for the third point, thats a complete "etiquette". And even though Chris had chosen to make some form of way to shun me, he does this in a very immature way, by immediately choosing to revert edits i've made in articles involving another wikiproject. so by this to occur, Chris has to be forced to avoid me, even when discussions are being brought up.Lucia Black (talk) 01:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Support Seems like the best option at this point. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Observing the many threads on this topic at ANI shows that the proposed remedy is desirable. Johnuniq (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Like some other editors, I did enjoy NE Ent's proposal but this one does take it a bit farther regarding these inappropriate noticeboard threads one of the two individual's has filed. This is a fine solution and the community at large ought to assist in notifying admins should a violation warranting a block occur. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Long-term issues at Simon Baron-Cohen[edit]

Minsk appears to understand that there are issues with their editing and have graciously agreed to avoid editing the article for the time being, and will instead propose edits on the article Talk page. Appears to be sticking to their word as they haven't been editing the article. Zad68 18:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have been trying off and on to get BLP Simon Baron-Cohen correctly cited for almost six years; there have been ongoing problems of either competence, tendentious editing, IDHT, or possible COI.

SPAs inserting POV, original research, and reverting or removing maintenance tags date to at least 2007, with the following chronology of SPAs:

See User talk:Minsk101 for notices from myself, Jfdwolff, and Sjö about Minsk101's editing.

When Minsk finally engaged in talk page discussion, it appeared there might be some improvement, but Minsk101 continues to insert text that is not verified by sources, and original research (diffs detailed on article talk). Both Martinevans123 and I suggested on talk that Minsk might propose sources on talk and let others incorporate them while s/he learns proper sourcing.

Yesterday I rewrote the entire article almost from scratch, incorporating all sources brought forward on talk to date, thinking that Minsk now understood sourcing;[21] same continued today even after multiple warnings and discussions and attempts at getting Minsk to understand Wikipedia's sourcing and content guidelines and policies.[22]

It doesn't appear that Minsk101 is able to edit this bio neutrally and competently; s/he seems determined to write an original research Curriculum vitae for Baron-Cohen on Wikipedia, with or without sources that support the text that s/he wants included. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

  • I'm not involved with the content but I've had my eye on this BLP for a little while. I think there's very likely a connection between the three named SPA accounts provided, but an SPI case probably won't go anywhere because the older accounts are far too stale to do anything about, and it's very possible/plausible that the passwords were simply lost or forgotten.

    Regarding the BLP content, Minsk's edits started off pretty bad and included edit-warring. They have slowly gotten better but are still not producing content that meets with BLP standards. As Sandy has pointed out, Minsk's edits have still been putting in content not totally supported by the sources cited, are using primary sources in questionable ways, and are causing extra work for others because they're not formatted properly. Minsk has been a bit slow to find their own User Talk page and the article Talk page but has indeed found them. Minsk seems to understand that their edits haven't been acceptable (see for example this) and appeared to agree to propose edits first (see this), but has since been going ahead and adding WP:OR and primary sources as Sandy points out. I'm trying to AGF but I have been getting the impression that Minsk is just saying what they expect the other editors want to hear, without actually following through on it, or at least not all the way.

    I was considering a 24 hour block for BLP problems until this ANI thread started, but now I think I'm going to ask Minsk to avoid editing articles and just respond here at this ANI thread until it's resolved. Zad68 04:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Archiving[edit]

I've just reverted ClueBot's archiving of this page, since it seemed to be wrong in removing some threads that weren't really stale, considering the intervention of the holidays. If I'm wrong, please revert me, or archive by hand based on actual staleness and not simply the advancement of the date. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

You'll probably need to put a "Bump" and sign with datestamp in each, or else they'll just be archived again in a few hours ES&L 17:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
The archive configuration had been set to 24, I've just set it back to 36 (hours). Note the visible "36" that appears on top of the page is actually in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader and not the functional number, which is in non-visible text at the very top of this page. NE Ent 16:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: Since you reverted [23] but not [24], a lot of threads are now duplicated, existing both here and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive824. Since the archive has been edited since then, it can't be cleanly undone. Can you try to clean this up? Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Since you clearly know what the duplicated threads are, why not just delete them in the archive? Why make me duplicate your work? BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't know all the ones that are. I just saw a few were duplicated, tried to undo ClueBot's edit there, and it failed. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Do we actually know that this is a problem? I frequently see sections that have been archived restored to the main page by hand, I assume without deleting the archived version, and things seem to get dealt with properly when the section is eventually archioved for good by the bot. Is that not the case? BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
If the archives get beyond a certain size, the search function fails, which can be problematic. I've removed the duplicate I found. NE Ent 02:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

───────────────────────── OK, I believe I've removed all threads that were duplicated between this page and Archive824, or duplicated within the Archive by being archived twice. I should have, of course, undone the archive at 824 when I undid it here, which would have avoided this problem. My error, and my apologies. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 03:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

ClueBot not archiving[edit]

ClueBot is not archiving like it is suppose to. If sections older than 36 hours are to be archived, at least 5 of the sections above should have been archived days ago:

  • Continued deletions... : 17:35, 2 January, next edit 04:51, 5 January
  • User:Joefromrandb: 21:25, 3 Jan, next edit 15:05, 6 Jan
  • Is it ok... : 23:54, 1 Jan, next edit 07:39, 5 Jan
  • user:Lgcsmasamiya: 01:57, 2 Jan, next edit 15:23, 6 Jan (closure)
  • Long-term issues... : 04:49, 3 Jan, next edit 18:07, 5 Jan (closure)

ClueBot (II or III, the notice says II but III has been doing what little gets done) has had a hit-or-miss archiving history since early December; see ClueBot III's contributions to this page. I notified ClueBot Commons on 30 December that this noticeboard was not being archived, but it is still (not) happening. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

ClueBot is often misunderstood but also can be buggy at times. The 36 hour threshold means sections that haven't been edited in 36 hours are archived. ClueBot does not pay attention to timestamps. With that in mind, if CB only runs once per day, the 36 hour setting essentially means 48. Brad (talk) 08:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

36 becomes 48? "Continued deletions..." had 59 hours between edits; "User:Joe" 55 hours, "Is it ok..." 80 hours, "user:Lgc" 85 hours, and "Long-term abuse..." 50 hours. ClueBot may be misunderstood, but I am not misunderstanding the difference between 48 and 85 hours. I am also not misunderstanding ClueBot's contribution history: it is archiving only once every three days, twice as long as the 36 hour notice. This board is too active for such a delay. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 10:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Community sanctions: The Rambling Man, Baseball Bugs, and Medeis[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To start with, I suppose I should remind everyone that consensus is not a vote. I do not count "votes", but rather read all the comments to determine consensus. (And there was a bit of history to read over as well, for context.)

This rfc essentially had 3 options concerning 3 editors: Baseball Bugs, and μηδείς, and The Rambling Man.

  • Option 1: Has fairly strong consensus to apply to all three editors, as stated. Please see in particular WP:IBAN and WP:BANEX.
  • Option 2: Has consensus (noting that indefinite is not interminable - especially as there is a criteria for appeal).
  • Option 3: No consensus.

And note: There was significant concern about "decorum" and "disruption" at the Reference desk (and its talk pages and subpages). This should be kept in mind for the future. While immediate discretionary sanctions did not have consensus per se (on technical grounds, for example), the general consensus is that if this continues, this activity should be sanctioned. So with that in mind, all three editors are to be considered warned (even if following a successful appeal of one or more of the options) that continuing this activity will result in further sanction, such as being blocked by any uninvolved admin.

Since this has been archived, but has been requested for closure, I'm closing this here, but will drop a note on all three editor's talk pages, and on the request for closures page. - jc37 18:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Per several requests for clarification, it would seem to be apparent that this close wasn't as clear as it should have been,. (IN particular concerning option #2) While the unfortunate phrasing was in the proposal, and while it would seem clear that there was no confusion amongst commenters what was intended in the proposal, as this affects what 3 editors may edit, I think it's worth clarifying this.
I am re-affirming that I see consensus in the discussion for enacting options 1 and 2. Option 1 had definite overwhelming support. And while Option 2 did not have as much support as opposed to opposition, it still had consensus. It varied slightly between the individuals (a few commenters thought that only one or more of each of the editors should be affected), but overall, it was clear that the commenters felt that the disruption at the reference desk pages needed to stop, and option 2 was the suggested way.
So with that in mind, to try to re-phrase:
The three editors in question are page banned (See WP:BAN) from the WP:Reference Desk and all it's talk pages, subpages, and any other directly related pages. (If in doubt, ask someone before editing.)
I have re-read the discussion in terms of the length of appeal, and I think it's fair to say that, in general, 6 months was considered too much or too long. So with that in mind, while the ban is still indefinite, there is no restriction upon when any of the editors may appeal the page ban for themselves. Though obviously, repetitively appealing a ban more often than let's say once every few months may be seen by the community as disruptive.
I will drop a note to each of the editors in question concerning this clarification of the close. - jc37 20:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


Yes, one more ANI thread on this, but this should end it.

Found this which provoked an arbitrator to warn. This saga has gone on long enough. As an uninvolved administrator, I hereby propopse the following three community sanctions:

1. The Rambling Man is banned from any interactions with Medeis and Baseball Bugs, indefinitely. Baseball Bugs and Medeis are banned from any interactions with The Rambling Man, indefinitely. These bans include article, talk, wikipedia, and user space, without exception. No mention of the others or their actions shall be permitted. These may be appealed to the community not less than one year after they become effective.
2. The Rambling Man, Medeis, and Baseball Bugs are topic-banned from the Reference Desk, indefinitely. This may be appealed to the community not less than six months after they become effective.
3. The Rambling Man, Medeis, and Baseball Bugs are subject to Standard Discretionary Sanctions, indefinitely. This may be appealed to the community not less than one year after they become effective.

These are independent proposals, but all three proposals cover all three editors.

  • Support mutual interaction ban between myself and TRM assuming he also supports it. There's no justification for any other action against any of us, and none has been given. μηδείς (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support 1 - I concur with Medeis. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
    • The problem with not imposing item 1 is that it will give TRM license to continue to stalk and harass Medeis and me. He's been told multiple times to disengage, but he won't - and he ridicules those who so advise him.[25]Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support 1. Drmies (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support 1. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Any sanctions on The Rambling Man. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Dude should've dropped the matter and let another mop handle it. He edit warred and hounded the two other editors. If a non-admin had that string of edits, he'd be indeffed pbp 06:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I am not going to withdraw my support for a mutual interaction ban if TRM supports it, but there is no way this admin is univolved. Not only has this administrator been recently involved with The Rambling Man (apparently at no fault of TRM's), he has also advised MilesMoney, on whose status I recently commented critically at ANI, that he would have unblocked him "I would have unblocked" for a recent block. This admin is obviously not an uninvolved party. μηδείς (talk) 05:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
TRM did that removal for a bunch of admins that were "notified" if I recall right (someone should check his edit log), that was incidental and doesn't predispose me any way towards him. Note it was TRM's comment linked above (on Medeis' talk page) that NewYorkBrad went and warned him over that was the straw that broke the camel's back here, so I don't know whether you'd presume I'm biased for or against him. Regarding the MilesMoney side, having an extremely active community editor up for sanctions / banning and blocked at the same time is extremely unusual and I was trying to ensure we got the process as exactly correct as possible despite that. The unblock I was willing to do was for purposes of his discussing the ban proposal at ANI only, which is what the other admin unblocked him to do. Bishonen's block was appropriate.
Administrators can't be noticeboard active without interacting with people. If you think I'm advocating for someone improperly please be specific. I have a long history of being somewhat pals with Baseball Bugs going approximately back to 2007 when he started editing, though less so in the last year because I've been busy elsewhere. I am treating him equally here, I think he's as much at fault as anyone (perhaps moreso). None of which matters for ones ability to file a community sanction case. Anyone, involved or uninvolved, can do that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support 1 only Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support 1. Also 3 if others support it. Not convinced 2 is justified at the moment except perhaps for TRM as they only recently appeared on RD, and most of their contributions appear to be sniping at BB & μηδείς, but 1 should put an end to that. Nil Einne (talk) 05:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Nil, I oppose any non-mutual and unnecessary sanctions. I have found TRM's contributions to be useful for the most part. Any inspection of my edits in regard to his edits over the last year will show this. μηδείς (talk) 05:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
To be clear, as I said in my statement I was only refering to TRM's contributions to the RD and WT:RD, and I stand by my comment. And prior to 13 December, they hadn't edited the RD or WT:RD since June except for this edit [26]. I don't recall what their editing on the RD/WT:RD was like in May and earlier when they seemed to have a few edits. Perhaps it was great. But most of their edits on RD/WT:RD in recent times that I've seen have been sniping at either you or BB. I dislike one sided bans as well, but if TRM isn't going to do anything better on the RD, such a ban may be a necessary evil whatever else they may do elsewhere (which I don't really know and don't really care). On the other hand, I don't think it's necessary since 1 should put an end to the behaviour. If they want to then start contributing productively to the RD and WT:RD, great. If not, that's up to them but doesn't really matter. BTW, the only reason I mentioned this at all is I wanted to explain why I opposed 2. In the case of BB and you, I opposed it because I don't think it's deserved or needed yet (which is not to say either of your behaviour has been perfect). The case of TRM is a little different as it may be deserved, but I don't think it's needed if we pass 1. Nil Einne (talk) 06:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Inquiry? can we have it specified that any interaction ban should not prevent TRM, BB, or myself from posting or the same page, so long as we don't directly address each other (i.e., TRM to myself or Bugs), or indirectly criticize each other? The reason I ask is that all three editors have a long history of contributions. For example, see TRM's very helpful history at WP:ITN, with only occasional and usually civil disagreement between him and me there. I ask this because I am unfamiliar with interacion bans, and don't think too broad a one is necessary. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 05:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
The interaction ban would follow the terms of Wikipedia:Interaction ban, so you can participate in the same discussion, let alone the same page provided you avoid replying to, referring to or otherwise involving the other editor. On the other hand, referring to the other editor in any way anywhere on wikipedia would be a problem (doesn't matter if it's criticism or not). This could include stuff like the now deleted content on TRM's user page [27] as well as the comment you made to Jayron32 [28]. Nil Einne (talk) 06:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support 1 and 3 2 I can't really fathom, but TRM interacting with Bugs is causing nothing but trouble. Likewise, Bugs whining about TRM is causing nothing but trouble pbp 06:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - IBANS are indicative of deeper problems with disruption issues. But maybe this group just needs to calm down and stop sniping at each other. Baseball Bugs is a character, and he's aware of that. Why does this have to come to an IBAN? Walk the hell away from each other. It's really easy. Doc talk 06:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
This was advised by just about everyone. It does not seem to have worked. Advice is not enforcable; a community sanction is. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support the interaction bans. I previously suggested a partial topic ban for Bugs and Medeis regarding the ref desks - that they be banned from posting anything but direct answers to the initial question asked - with a cited source or Wikilink. I still think that this might work - and if it doesn't, a full ban on ref desks will still be an option. Regardless of any other issues, at the core of this dispute is the behaviour of these two individuals on the ref desks, where both regularly treat questions as an excuse for political soapboxing, sniping at each other and the like. If they can demonstrate their usefulness on the ref desks, fine. If they can't do so without treating them as a forum cum bearpit, I'm sure we will manage without them... AndyTheGrump (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • There are three individuals up for sanctions here, not two. Is the third editor not an issue when the others are? Doc talk 07:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I've personally only noticed it as involving Bugs and Medeis - at least as a long-term problem. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, but all three sanctions mention TRM equally if I'm reading it right. So it's apparently not just Bugs and Medeis that need some sort of yoke on them. In other words: no one side is actually "right" over the other. Sometimes it takes three to tango? Doc talk 07:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Here's my take on it AndyTheGrump is correct that BB and μηδείς are the bigger long term problems on the RD albeit in different ways.
μηδείς's biggest problem has been their desire to close (hat) every single question or subdiscussion they feel is inappropriate. Many of their closures are contentious and even worse, despite their hatting and frequent strongly criticism of these discussions, they've been far from perfect themselves. However μηδείς does seem to have gotten better and I think is making fewer closures recently. μηδείς does make plenty of useful contributions.
BB is BB. Many of their contributions are useful although sometimes in typical BB fashion they don't come across few well. Many of their responses are jokes and other stuff people find somewhat disruptive.
There are other issues with both but I don't want this to be too long.
TRM isn't a long term problem on the RD. They can't be since as I mentioned above, between 26th June and 13th December, they only had one comment on the RD or WT:RD. I consider myself a regular at the RD for several years now (except for maths, language & entertainment), think of that what you will, but don't really associate TRM as someone I recall seeing much of at the RD.
That's in itself is fine, I'm not saying outsiders have no right to comment, criticise or recommend stuff. The problem is since TRM started to show up again in 13th December, most of their comments, primarily WT:RD but also at WP:RD have been sniping at BB and μηδείς.
As I said, I'm fine with people criticising the RD or its contributors and recommending how to improve it. But most of TRM's contributions don't really seem to be constructive criticism instead simple sniping and I would say it's gotten worse as time has gone on.
Okay to be fair some of their replies on the RD itself have contained useful information which is great. Except even in those cases these replies have been to BB or perhaps μηδείς and have contained some degree of apparent sniping. It's normal and accepted to fairly criticise answers you feel are unhelpful, particularly if you offer clarification. I've done it a fair amount, and of course it's more likely to happen with someone who makes more poor answers. But it just seems to me TRM is frequently going to far particularly when combined with the fact they don't seem to be doing much else on RD/WT:RD, hence my comment above about feeling TRM is the clearer problem at the moment. Even some of the older comments from May/June (to the RD/WT:RD) appeared to be similar although I did see quite a few better contributions then.
And to be clear, BB being BB has frequently given back as good as they have received to TRM. μηδείς much less so which is fairly normal. But BB has continued to make their, sometimes helpful sometimes less so, contributions to the RD.
I don't know much about what's going on outside the RD, it does seem μηδείς and TRM have some problems on ITN/C which I don't check out much any more. And I understand why TRM is pissed off at μηδείς's comment on Jayron32's talk page. Ultimately it does seem an interaction ban would help.
Nil Einne (talk) 13:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Borderline TL;dr, but I get the point. I have sniped at Baseball Bug and Medeis (mea culpa) but based on their current edit patterns, they do not serve their audience correctly. They happily joke around and piss-take. It's not what I believe a "reference desk" editor should be doing, and many, many others have stated similarly. A real pity that it's got this far, that these two "editors" have been able to get away with it for so long. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I take it that you really don't condone then this crappy piss-take joke [29] on the desks? Yet you edit-warred over it over Medeis objections [30][31][32]. Perhaps a wp:trout is in order for that. -Modocc (talk) 06:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support IBAN, Neutral on the others for now. If an IBAN prompts these three to get back to positive content work rather than wasting their time and energy sniping at each other, that's a good thing. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC).
  • Support 1. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 09:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose all. I don't think the situation has risen to the level where this sort of action is necessary. See Doc9871's comment above. This generally strikes me as being like trying to accomplish toenailing with a sledgehammer: it could accomplish the task, but it's not the right tool, and the outcome would probably be sloppy and serves to make the community look like poor craftspeople generally. Specifically, I think that if the parties agree to not interact, or at least not interact disruptively, we can all get back to work. Even if an interaction ban is imposed, I think it should be much shorter and self-expiring. Bans, like blocks, are a preventive tool, and leaving something in place until someone appeals it isn't usually preventive unless it's clear—crystal clear—that the parties are incapable of working within community standards. Before us, we have three prolific contributors who have been around for a good long while. I think that in and of itself counsels against making any kind of restrictions indefinite, at least not without a substantial record of evidence that this has changed. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 09:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose all Too soon, too harsh, and would shift, not solve the problem; ambiguous references will be made and argued about. No evidence has been presenting that these editors are disrupting the encyclopedia (mainspace). NE Ent 10:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support the interaction ban - which TRM seems happy with anyway, and will therefore stick to. The others on the other hand are wind-up merchants, and I would also support them two to be banned from the ref desk. GiantSnowman 10:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose all although 2 has merit. I have no inclination to interact with these two editors ever again, but don't see any requirement for any formal sanctions. More troubling seems to be the fact that any formal sanction like this would prevent me filing an RFC on the undesirable behaviour of those two editors at the reference desk, which has been noted variously at WT:RD and above, thus giving them carte blanche to carry on regardless. (Incidentally, the posting admin seems a little trigger-happy and keen to punish me, having blocked me, albeit erroneously, at a moment's notice this morning.) The Rambling Man (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose all as disproportionate and too soon etc. -- KTC (talk) 12:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose all Draconian solutions rarely work, and this one consists of a whole slew of separate "solutions" none of which is likely to help as much as hinder the project. I greatly respect the proposer, but suggest that a much simpler proposal would suffice -- such as maybe a one month "do not respond to each other in any derogatory fashion whatsoever" sanction. Collect (talk) 13:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose all overkill Agathoclea (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I believe it is unwise to invoke any sanctions (such as Proposal 2.) that would shift BB's energies to editing the Article space. What few edits he has made there lately seem to be externally linked rubbish that has to be cleaned up/reverted by others. 54.224.53.210 (talk) 13:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
    The above is the latest in a series of harassment-only IP's based in the DC area (obviously the same guy, IP-hopping):
54.224.35.46 (talk · contribs)
54.224.206.154 (talk · contribs)
54.242.221.254 (talk · contribs)
54.224.53.210 (talk · contribs)
Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Point of order sanction 3 states "Standard Discretionary Sanctions" without linking to what is meant by the phrase; common wiki usage for the phrase is WP:AC/DS which this forum cannot impose. NE Ent 15:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
It would be novel, but the community has inherent authority, and cribbing arbcom's language for a sanction package doesn't change the underlying authority. It would just establish DS as a common remedy for both community and Arbcom. That said, lack of support here evident for 2, 3. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
2 is a great idea, and I'm all up for that, as it's the basis of this issue. The sooner the other "editors" stop using the RD as they personal sandbox, the better. A break from that, and maybe a focus for them on improving the mainspace, would be perfect. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
The general term for community based sanctions has been "general sanctions"; I don't believe there's a standard wording like AC/DS but the wording of a previous sanction could be copy pasted. NE Ent 21:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support 1. Support 2 for Baseball Bugs only, and only if length of time lessened. -- Let's not lose sight of the fact that this bad blood is at least in part a symptom of chronically problematic refdesk edits/answers -- which really should be the greater concern. I've not seen TRM provide the kind of frequently unhelpful and/or insulting kinds of answers I've seen out of the other two -- and then it only seems to be Bugs who shows absolutely no indication of knowing/caring he's done anything wrong or showing any inclination he'll stop (how many times are people going to say "Baseball Bugs is Baseball Bugs" as an excuse to look the other way a la "boys will be boys?"). That being said, an indef refdesk ban is overkill. All three of these users, Bugs included, do seem genuine in their dedication to Wikipedia and to the refdesk, but at the same time there needs to be proof of consequences for using it inappropriately despite countless requests/warnings not to. --— Rhododendrites talk |  15:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait for the RFC I would like to see a proper discussion of B and M's conduct at the reference desks and would be sorry if that doesn't not take place because T, who has said he is working on it, can't mention their names. 184.147.128.82 (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
    • That's a good point, as it would likewise prevent us from creating an RFC about TRM and his stalking and harassment of other editors (which is by no means limited to just Medeis and me). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
      • So do you or do you not support the interaction ban? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
        • I do support it (Option 1), as I already said. It just has to be both directions. It would be unfair to allow you to continue stalking and harassing us while depriving us of the capability to defend ourselves. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
          • I don't recall suggesting it should be a one-way interaction ban. In fact, the only suggestion of that nature has been the polar opposite. The fundamental issue here is that I've been the only person bold enough to engage with you both to ask you to stop using the Reference Desks as your own personal play areas. And it appears, from the notes above and elsewhere, that I'm far from alone in that. So, is it option 1 (interaction ban all round) or not option 1 (no interaction ban all round)? It's a simple question. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Support 1, and 2 vis-a-vis Medeis and Baseball Bugs only Oppose Topic ban for TRM. Per Andy mostly. Too much treating WP like a forum to air their opinions. Bugs especially seems to attract drama; he used to do it on ANI and now he's just moved the same behavior to another venue where it's just as disruptive. Noformation Talk 16:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

In contrast to TRM, who frequently uses the edit summaries as a forum to air his opinions, ranging from the snippy and condescending to the vulgar and childish. What do you intend to do about that? Or does he get a free pass because he's an admin? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I didn't know he was an admin until you pointed that out, and why would I care if he is an admin? I have no love for bureaucratic immunity. Noformation Talk 17:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
So, what can be done about it? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Assuming that what I support passes, if the problem were to continue I would support the same sanction for him. Noformation Talk 17:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
It wouldn't stop him from doing it to other editors, as he does now. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
It would be profitable to this process if you notified these "other editors" about this particular discussion. After all, why would you wish for them not to know about the opportunity to discuss my behaviour? Please let us and them know as soon as practicable about the current situation, before the possible impending sanctions limit your ability to do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: The infantile feuding involving these three editors has got to stop. Not only has it disrupted the reference desks and their talkpages, but in December the rampant bickering between The Rambling Man and Medeis became a huge distraction on WP:ITN, an important process for maintaining the main page, as well. (To their credit, that page has been quieter recently.) I would like to think that this thread would serve as a wakeup call for all three of these editors but unfortunately I doubt it. I dare them to prove me wrong. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - While I'm not happy with how TRM has handled this, I think that BB and Medeis are the primary instigators. I'm not convinced that characterising this as a problem with their interactions, as such, is productive. It is the way they interact with users generally, and treat RD (and to a lesser extent ITNC) as their personal playground. Wikipedia needs to stop being so enabling of smug rule-gaming trolls. BB's behaviour was censured in the Chelsea Manning ArbCom findings, but that was just a particularly gross outcropping of a general pattern of poor conduct which has gone on for years. Let's have a proposal which addresses the underlying actions, not the dysfunctional way TRM has tried to confront them. Action against TRM for that could follow if appropriate. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Agreed, Alex is another editor to point out the playground behaviour of the other two "editors" here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
      • I think it would be an excellent idea for editors and admins who aren't TRM to keep scrutiny on this and work constructively to end any underlying behavior concerns. Alex, are you willing to help? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
        • That would be nice. Also it would be nice if you, GWH, could formulate ANI reports that are viable (see NE Ent above) and not go trigger-happy blocking. You may be keen to get me off the project, even Medeis has noted that you seem to have a conflict here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
As noted elsewhere, I'm not too well at present, and have limited resources for WP activity. I also have prior history with both BB and Medeis, and so I'm not sure there's any hope of either of them responding to my attempts to 'work constructively'. What I want to see is the general pattern of their behaviours to be addressed through administrative action, not a labour-intensive support programme for smart people who clearly ought to know better. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I just hope that the very existence of this discussion is enough for all concerned to sit up and take notice that their behaviour is too often too disruptive. Nobody is perfect, and probably most of us veer from the strict pathway from time to time, and it's a judgement call as to how far is too far, and how often is too often. Well, the judgement of the three named editors is once again, and far from the first time, being called into serious question. Only an editor who is addicted to being the centre of attention at all costs, even at the cost of their reputation, would be happy with this state of affairs. If that were true in any case, the professional help they need is beyond our powers here. Do I believe this discussion will improve matters in any significant way? Sadly, no. Which is why I am formally abstaining from supporting or opposing any of the proposals. But there is always hope. Oh no, they can't take that away from me. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Yep, some editors spend their lives in the talk pages, making comedy remarks etc. Others spend them on articles, improving the Wikipedia. Problem is, the "existence of this discussion" will never be enough for some of those "former" "editors". The Rambling Man (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I've got an alternate proposal. TRM alleges that I have never made a worthwhile edit.[33] Since he's stalking us anyway, let's put that to good use. I challenge TRM to watch every edit I make henceforth, and report (on my talk page) what is factually incorrect about each given edit when it appears. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Bugs, you've been here long enough to know that factual accuracy is not the only measure of usefulness. You proposal is obviously obstructive, and I find it hard to take it seriously. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Do you take seriously his claim that I have never made a useful edit??? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Let's get something straight here: I HATE THIS PAGE. I've pretty much stopped editing articles because I got tired of fighting vandals. And I pretty much stopped coming here because nothing ever changes. The one area that I thought I could usefully contribute is the question-and-answer section. Now the stalker TRM wants to boot me off there too. But until someone starts looking at TRM's behavior also, this kind of problem is going to come up again and again until someone finally gets wise and sends him packing. The good thing about this scenario is that I'll be gone while y'all will be stuck with him. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not interested in your diversionary tactic of talking about TRM's claim. You're proposing something pointless and unworkable, and asking useless questions of me. Your behaviour elsewhere on the site has been justly censured. Stop boring on about TRM and take a decent look at your own conduct. You've wilfully ignored my point about 'factual accuracy' being a red herring. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I had already resolved to reign in my sense of humor and try to stick to low-key, factual answers. I had already put myself on an interaction ban with TRM. I had gotten past his vile behavior and hoped that I would never have to see or hear from him again. Then my old pal GWH resurrects this already-tired debate. If you look at TRM's recent edits, you will see that he has been told repeatedly to disengage, but he won't do it. I'm trying to adhere to what he wants me to do, in terms of edits, but he keeps harping on the same theme. What am I supposed to do? How can I please him to the point where he won't stalk me anymore? And supposing he succeeds in his campaign to kill me off here, how do you intend to address that kind of problem with TRM in the future? Because I can guaran-damn-tee you his behavior is not going to improve. He'll just find other targets. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
The mature way to deal with these things is for each participant to acknowledge and take responsibility for their own behaviour, and then STOP talking. Absolutely NO finger pointing, no matter how justified you may feel it is. (Children use that sort of approach, but they eventually grow out of it.) I'm not saying it's easy. But it is essential. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 01:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Aha, the voice of reason. Ya know what? You're right. I have fallen into the "Look what you made me do" trap. I refuse to submit to that game any further. See ya. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure I speak for many others when I say "We'll hold you to that promise, Baseball Bugs". -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 03:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support 1 and 2 I stopped providing responses at the Ref Desk where I had been a regular for 3 or 4 years specifically because of the behaviour and attitudes expressed there by Medeis. I check in from time to time, hoping for a positive change. Things appear to be getting worse. Bielle (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support 2 only. The Reference Desk is the obvious locus of the dispute as had been identified by nearly all parties, including the proposer. It would be logical to address that issue first and see if the issue abates before adding interaction bans and discretionary sanctions. Why not try the flyswatter before pulling out the DDT? --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
TRM's conflict with Medeis spilled over to the reference desks. He was calling her a snake and called us "chatty snakes" [34]. -Modocc (talk) 02:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
So banning their posting on the reference desk would put an end to such posts, no? Or am I missing something? Why attempt to monitor and police their behavior across the entire project when the problem exists in only one part of the project?--Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I think the "problem" has been exaggerated. Bugs and Medies have helped out with good faith edits and Bugs has stated he is attempting to improve his answers [35] and both I think have a better handle as to how to deal with trolling and banned users, for instance, Medies has been addressing marginal trollish posts and debates on the talkpage to get additional input. In addition, TRM has attempted to back up his case by posting quite a few quotes without diffs or context which is hardly fair to them. -Modocc (talk) 03:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Stipulating all of the above as true, I still don't see how project-wide remedies for localized disputes help. Given that you changed you !vote, I take it that you agree, possibly?--Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Sometimes editors require interaction bans and given the level of disruption caused, this could very well be one of those times. At some point, what happens depends on them not continuing to bludgeon each other and instead rely on assistance from others that are much less involved when they need to deal with their issues. -Modocc (talk) 04:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
And after reading some of the posts I missed above, I've changed my !vote back again... ugh. -Modocc (talk) 08:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I think concentration on the Ref Desks is missing the essence of the problem, which is hostile interaction across the project starting mid-December.
While there has recently been a lot of noise on the Reference Desk talk page, there is no ongoing dispute on the Ref Desk itself. Rather, TRM has rekindled a long-term grudge against me for that began about a year ago for my saying on the ITN desk that he was "rambling". This lead to a long series of attacks by him on talk pages and in edit summaries, and his intentional distortion of my user name, which you can see revived recently in his edit summaries calling me "meds" and "medeisss".
All this is unbelievably silly, but TRM recently decided to make the Ref Desk talk page part of the venue of his hounding. As part of that hounding he has attacked and criticized other editors as well, and refused the advice of various admins telling him there and in other places to cease and withdraw. In contrast, while you won't find a single case of me following TRM around that I am ware of, you will find him showing up out of the blue, for expample, when I posted on Mark Arsten and Deborahjay's talk pages on matters totally unrelated to him. Here (copied from the ANI against TRM in the most recent archive) is a list of some 23 reversions, hostile edits, and hostile edit summaries by TRM over the last few weeks, almost entirely without response by me: