Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive259

---

she disregards editing restrictions.

Today, I was contacted separately by three editors, including ChrisGualtieri, that get a strong feeling that since the expiration of her block, Lucia has been systematically involving herself in topics that were previously the subject of disputes between her and Chris; since he is obviously not allowed to engage with her at the time being, this could be an attempt to use the IBAN to her advantage in "having her way" with the subjects of these disputes. Examples:

.

The last discussion was aptly summarized by User:TParis who pointed out that "There is strong opinion that Lucia Black is wearing on the community's patience.", and the situation seems to have failed to get better, even with the imposition of editing restrictions intended to minimize disruption without having to further remove Lucia from the project.

I am not sure how to proceed with this; escalating blocks don't seem like a good idea to me, a wider topic ban seems like the restrictions would become just too much to be practical, and an indef-block would no doubt be contested and discussed (so I thought discussion might as well take place beforehand...). Something needs to be done, I think, but I can't make up my mind as to what exactly, and I trust the community's judgement in reviewing & handling these matters.

(Just to make it clear, the active restrictions include forbidding Lucia from starting a new thread on an administrative noticeboard, but she's obviously allowed to respond to this if she sees fit.) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

---

All I know is that it seems she's already violated her "last chance" set up twice now with these sorts of antics. How many last chances do we give? Sergecross73 msg me 18:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

It depends. For established editors (more or less equal to "people whose names you recognize"), the answer is usually "a lot". For newer people, the answer is usually "one". (That might make an interesting research topic.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that - I recognise Lucia Black's name only too well. And given the reasons I recognise it, I'm of the opinion that the last 'last chance' she was given was at least one too many. She seems incapable of contributing without creating drama and conflict, and since she's demonstrated that she isn't going to comply with restrictions the community imposes, an indefinite block would seem entirely reasonable on the face of it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh come on, you guys. You know this website just won't be the same without everyone constantly bickering with Lucy Black over the most petty shit imaginable. Whoever else will come with stuff like keep your personal opinions to yourself, or i will save it for a time to put in ANI. it's that simple in case she's gone? Lucia Black related drama is an essential part of the Wikipedia experience. --

talk

) 20:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Although your statement is obviously dripping with sarcasm, I agree that it highlights an important issue, which is that Lucia seems to expect drama to be the result of her actions and does nothing to avoid or minimize conflict. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I came in, ready to levy a long block for IBAN violations, but then I re-read it and realised that you were linking to an old violation as an example. Has Lucia done anything that, by itself, warrants sanctions right now? Your point about the systemic involvement may be a good reason for further sanctions, but we definitely need discussion on it. Nyttend (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Nyttend, unless there has been something recent that has not been addressed then I really do not see what the issue is here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

A couple of users addressed me with the concerns laid out above that she was using the IBAN as a tool in disputes, and after personally reviewing the issue I was unable to decide what (if anything) should be done, which is why I'm submitting this for review, in light of the other recent violations. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Knowledgekid misunderstands me. I'm acknowledging that the review you want may be grounds for sanctions, and I'm acknowledging that there might be something recent (I've not checked either way on that); my question was purely "has there been anything specific?" Long-term patterns are sometimes disruptive when nothing individual is; most arbitration cases, for example, deal with disruptive patterns that lack specific problematic edits. Nyttend (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

As for requesting closing of WP:GAR, that was consensus reached in the GAR. i'm only trying to get carried out. I personally would've preferred that it just get GA pass right then and there.

I don't know why Sailor Moon is an issue, if i had any dispute with Chris in the past regarding Sailor Moon, i would've remembered, or was too petty to discuss and in the end was resolved. But taking advantage of the interaction ban? I'm only bringing up an issue that had received consensus along time ago but didn't have the means to doing it because no one was interested in it (at that time).

This is ridiculous, I've been avidly interested in Sailor Moon for a long time. I was just about to contact User:Knowledgekid87 on the issue to see if he can make sense of this when i noticed something. ChrisGualtieri private messaged Knowledgekid87 asking he could make the article into GA. Here i thought "oh crud, how was i supposed to know he got involved before i did". But i noticed he removed it, and then i thought why he needed to remove it if this was evidence enough to get me blocked forever. so i took a closer look and noticed he asked 5 hours after I got involved in the discussion and i decided to help. i dont know if he's trying to "hide" this information, but i can see why he would. Now if this is the issue of "getting my way" and taking advantage of the interaction ban, the editor was asking for help publicly in WP:ANIME in which I accepted to help on my own. Anyone from WP:ANIME can tell you that I've had my own personal interest in Sailor Moon for a very long time, practically since the time i joined.

Gaming the system would be if i did the exact same thing Chris did just now. If Chris accepted to help another editor and getting involved, but suddenly i choose to go around the discussion by bringing it up in the talkpage. So basically, WP:BOOMERANG at its finest. i have a pretty clear idea on who these editors are.

HOWEVER, if i accidentally get involved in a public discussion that was brought up by the person i was banned from interacting with through private messaging, per WP:IBAN i would prefer if you mention either one of us in the discussion so that we don't accidentally get involved in a discussion that was brought prior to it being made public. Sounds like a quick and easy way to get banned. although from now on i suppose i could look into talkpages before to double-check.Lucia Black (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

For the record I did reply to Chris here addressing the issue with some ideas: [1] which was reverted on his talkpage as "No comment" - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

And even more i'm in the dark. i wish this WP:AN didn't even started. Salvidrim, you should consider analysing the situation and actually discussing it with me BEFORE bringing it in WP:AN.Lucia Black (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, this is why you're banned from starting discussions at AN/ANI. You have no idea when it is or is not appropriate to start a discussion here. This was a very sensible move by Salv, and you go and try to lecture him about it. Get a

clue. Sergecross73 msg me

02:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Lucia has been a member of the anime/manga project though longer than Chris has and has made constructive edits on Sailor Moon, I do not see where the dispute between her and Chris was regarding Sailor Moon. As for the request for closure in Ghost in the Shell the edits made by Lucia were before the interaction ban between her and Chris. The latest edit for a request for closure seems warrented given that over two months had gone by, in addition another editor seemed to be in agreement with this: [2] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

There also appears to be a history between Lucia and User:Verso.Sciolto from the very start that raises more questions. [3] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: WP:CLUE is all about having the better reason to move discussions along. We should focus on the real issue. Chris intended to game the system here, and with 2 other editors tried to make it look like i was trying to do that when there's nothing suggesting it. that's a serious issue, regardless if you're irritated or lost patience with me. Now, we been down this road before...but should your view on me outweigh actions of these 3 editors?Lucia Black (talk) 05:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I have been following the edit histories of several contributors because I’m looking for indications on how to proceed with the improvement of the Nausicaa related articles. I’ve had a conflict with Lucia Black about the Nausicaa (manga) article in the past, do not know what her intentions are for those articles and have kept an eye on her edits for that reason. I was aware of ChrisGualtieri’s edit history as well because of his edits to Nausicaa related articles but also because of his interactions with Lucia Black. There was a marked difference between the way each of them approached me and that certainly has influenced how I evaluate each of them individually. It is for this reason that I’ve read previous discussions on these pages and have on previous occasions also voiced my own opinion about Lucia Black’s, in my opinion disruptive and unnecessarily confrontational behaviour.

Before the interaction ban was enacted between Lucia Black and Chris Gualtieri, but as the discussion to implement such measures was unfolding here earlier this month the discussion had already reached a point when it was clear that corrective measures would be applied. Lucia Black nevertheless reverted several of Chris Gualtieri's edits on Ghost in the Shell related articles. While this was before a ban was imposed it seemed hardly in the spirit of trying to resolve the issue or working towards consensus to do so while a discussion of this kind was in progress.

After the interaction ban was imposed Lucia Black indicated not caring about sanctions because her edits had been the last ones and would therefore be preserved as the status quo. After Lucia Black and ChrisGualtieri had both been blocked from editing one particular segment of the contested set of Ghost in the Shell articles. ChrisGualtieri has been advised to abandon the entire set of articles and I thought it unwise for Lucia Black to get involved in any Ghost in the Shell related topic at that point. Since the underlying dispute was for the Ghost in the Shell articles in their totality it was not a topic she should have addressed in any form within two days of returning from a general editing block. That was the opinion I expressed on the Ghost in the Shell reassessment page.

When I noticed that Lucia Black had also indicated a desire to work on Sailor Moon related articles again that too seemed an unwise decision because of a dispute she had been involved in with a different editor. (That dispute did not involve ChrisGualtieir directly but involved Malkinann who disappeared shortly after mediation was initiated. Malkinann had previously been involved in editing Nausicaa related topics.)

I thought it would have been wiser for Lucia Black to select topics with a less troubled past for her return to editing. I did not comment at this point. Lucia Black followed up her initial comments on Sailor Moon by using Dragon Ball Z as an example for her intentions. At this point I questioned her decision because it seemed unwise to invoke that particular example to make a point to demonstrate the supposed necessity of either splits or merges.

The choice of example seemed unwise to me because Lucia Black was well aware that ChrisGualtieri would want to comment on the applicability of Dragon Ball Z but was restricted from doing so as a result of their mutual interaction ban. Dragon Ball Z is another topic she is well aware has been the subject of heated confrontations over the split and merges of that article - with ChrisGualtieri being one of the primary voices of those who opposed Lucia Black’s own interpretations.

If avoiding rekindling conflict is the goal why not pick a less contentious example? That was my thought and that’s why I questioned Lucia Black’s choice of topics and examples. This is what caused a few exchanges on my talk page and I left a comment on those topics on Lucia Black’s talk page.

I had also noticed that ChrisGualtieri had indicated, on Knowledgekid87’s talk page, that he was interested in editing Sailor Moon related content and that too seemed an unwise move to me given the interaction ban and Lucia Black’s earlier indication that she would like to work on Sailor Moon related articles again.

Contrary to Lucia Black's assertion I did not single her out for revenge but contacted several other editor's to alert them that the situation between the two of them might require attention to avoid reigniting the drawn out conflicts related to Ghost in the Shell in particular but also mentioned the desire expressed by both of them to work on Sailor Moon related articles. I did so because of the contentious issue of splits and merges of other manga and anime articles and because Dragon Ball Z had been mentioned by Lucia Black.

It seemed to me that the continued efforts to edit in overlapping areas would cause further conflict. I did not say that there had already been violations but I indicated that a situation was brewing with the potential for reigniting the conflicts. The status quo is untenable, imo. There is no clarity on which articles or parts of series each individual can or can not address or edit and that is the reason why I posted my messages.

Because of my own prior conflict with Lucia Black I contacted 2 editor’s for their input and disclosed my own previous conflict with Lucia Black in those messages. Sometime later I also messaged an other editor, Salvidrim, particularly after the exchanges on my talk page. [edited 2x] Verso.Sciolto (talk) 06:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

A)The edit was done prior to the ban, so gaming the system would be reverting my edits in any fashion (and no, it was not discussed in the talkpage at all) regardless of prior to or after. Which is why i couldn't discuss in any discussion Chris was already involved in even if i was already invovled (and the same for him). It's still violation of the interaction ban. And its not a win-win situation for me either. For example, i've been intending to heavily reduce the gameplay from Ghost in the Shell (video game) but the ones i want to remove involve Chris's edits. I've consciously avoided removing them as that would be violating WP:IBAN by removing the content "he" added. So per status quo, i can't touch that specific information.

B)Chris and I were topic banned Ghost in the Shell (manga) specifically not the topic as a whole. And were to avoid any topics that have had previous disputes with him. In Ghost in the Shell (video game) there are none that were left unresolved. Also note that we were not specifically advised to avoid the entire topic. I've been editing Stand Alone Complex for quite a while without worry because Chris does not make an large contributions there. if he ever planned, i wouldn't know, but i'm free to edit other articles that i have not disputed with him. Chris more or less involved in the Ghost in the Shell film articles which i've avoided for some time, i'm in Stand Alone Complex series articles aswell and he hardly makes any edits there. the main dispute with me and Chris would have to be the franchise article and the manga article relationship as it has been the longest dispute ever (mainly due to a specific edit liking to do edit wars when he doesn't get his way). and we should both be avoiding them (not out of rules, but out of etiquette to follow further disputes).

C) I was advised to avoid articles that have had issues with Chris in the past. That does not mean you should HOUND any discussion that has had any issues in general. I brought up Dragon Ball Z as an example of how Sailor Moon fit the situation of being able to split (an issue Chris shouldn't have to begin with as he's pro-split for big series such as these). the discussion was NOT to discuss Dragon Ball Z in any way other than using it as an example as to allow a Sailor Moon (anime) article. Which means, Dragon Ball Z was not in danger of being re-merged anytime soon or being a major topic. And trying to make it look like it was cringe worthy for Chris to avoid is only falsifying information. Even if he did, i only brought up the other example to further allow a split of another article. And for the record: this was a topic long before Chris even joined Wikipedia.

D) If you construed the information here, as much as you did when you informed the other editors, especially if there's only one unbias editor that made the email, then it only shows bad on your part. (which i don't doubt the third emailer was unbias isn't because the only editor willing to follow this e-mail campaign rather than straight out would have to have had an issue with me, or some form of bias already. So right now, if you, and Chris, are the 2 out of 3. You can see why the 3rd anonymous editor isn't so hard to pick out).

Salvidrim! should've known, why couldn't you all OPENLY have asked? you see, it only shows more on you and your intentions.Lucia Black (talk) 06:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I contacted 3 editors independently and although the comment above is more elaborate than the e-mails were, my message to them already contained each of the topics addressed. Each of the editors can identify themselves if they see reason to do so but ChrisGualtieri was not one of the editors I contacted.Verso.Sciolto (talk) 07:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

theres so much more to say on how you construed the information, but its best to end this now. because theres nothing here. Lucia Black (talk) 07:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I wrote my comment on the Ghost in the Shell reassessment openly, appended an example showing that Chris Gualtieri had been advised to avoid all Ghost in the Shell articles. It seems appropriate to suggest you do the same. I also asked you openly about your choice of topics and examples on the Manga and Anime talk page regarding Sailor Moon and Dragon Ball Z. I also openly addressed your responses on my talk page. The message I left on your talk page was also posted openly. I suggested that you remove the Dragon Ball Z reference for the same reason you removed my comment from your talk page. There was no revenge motive nor was there subterfuge nor was there any collusion but I would still like clarity on the topics addressed. The status quo is untenable and my decision to contact three other editors was supposed to be preemptive. [edit]Verso.Sciolto (talk) 08:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

No such advise was given to chris. and i have the link myself to prove he was not advised to avoid all Ghost in the Shell articles. and i was not advised either. [4] this shows that Chris (and I0 were warned to avoid discussing Ghost in the Shell (manga) not the topic as a whole.

Sailor Moon is an even more ridiculous because i had no prior dispute with Chris, and this only show more on your part. Sailor Moon has nothing to do with Chris and me, which means i'm free to discuss it and edit it. IN fact, it shows how he was willing to game the system by forcing his foot into a topic i already stated i was going to be involved in. And there's no reason for me to avoid those articles. You just mentioned how you knew Malkinann in the past through Nasicaa articles and how we had disputes about sailor moon, so you already show a strong sense of Bias here by admitting the connection to Sailor Moon could also be through Malkinann NOT ChrisGualtieri.

Keep in mind, you continuously chose to discuss ChrisGualtieri in my talkpage and in urs, something you know i can't discuss about and i've warned you several times and refused to discuss it with you. So knowing full-well i was banned from even "mentioning" his name, you continued to bring him up.

Seriously, can someone just close this. Verso.Sciolto have made serious accusations based on what he believes, but theres links to show how construed his basis is. And we should just close this now.Lucia Black (talk) 08:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Why would we close it now? Have any of the concerns been addressed? I feel like you've only added more fuel to the fire; as soon as you actively joined the discussion, the drama/rants/wall-of-text responses flared right up again. This is the sort of crap we're trying to cut down on. Sergecross73 msg me 14:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

You know, you've been commenting a lot, but you haven't addressed any of the issues i brought up. SO i don't understand where you coming from when you say the concerns haven't been addressed. you're too focused on the reaction i get rather than what i'm actually saying.

And...Chris intended to game the system, and bringing up Sailor Moon and trying to make it look like "I'm " gaming the system is a big big BIG insult. I have been editing Sailor Moon articles for a long time without any dispute with ChrisGualtieri that i know of, and trying to get me from editing so another editor can push his way in, is an insult. it really is.Lucia Black (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

But this is why Salvidrim started up this discussion though: here you are, ranting and raving about the person you're supposed to have interaction ban with. All the proof you need to show that it's not working. It's only been a week and we're already dealing with this again. Sergecross73 msg me 21:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Whoa there Serge, I'm pretty certain that it's perfectly fine for her to discuss outside the IBAN on a thread at AN about the IBAN. Preventing anyone from doing so would be completely unfair. I consider this discussion to be exempt from the IBAN; I'm not saying she's right or that her attitude is perfect, but she's only here because this discussion was started. I, for one, am glad to hear her out. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

If you say so. I'm all for her defending herself, but most of her responses are seems like they're centered around going on the offensive, not defending her own actions. (Like her last comment, for example.) Sergecross73 msg me 21:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Section break

Doesn't the interaction ban go both ways? This particular episode all started because Chris commented on one of Lucia's edits[5]. That would be a violation of the interaction ban between Chris and Lucia. Verso.Sciolto also is not clean in this as he has been stalking my edits and implying that I've been engaged in disruptive activity because I haven't been logging into my named account, which I've already requested that the baseless sockpuppet case s/he filed be oversighted (so I won't link it here). Apparently, Verso.Sciolto is engaging in similar behavior with Lucia. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

In his next comment, he says that he thought he was allowed to report someone else breaking the interaction band due to one of the clauses in

WP:IBAN, which is either correct, or a good-faith misunderstanding. That strikes me as a lot different than Lucia, who recently got blocked for a week for purposely breaking her IBAN to get her way, something she openly admitted to. Sergecross73 msg me

21:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Chris's comment is still a violation of IBAN, and if Lucia was blocked for similar actions, then the same should be for Chris. As for Verso, it's clear that they have been

WP:POKING at other editors in order to cause trouble. I wouldn't doubt that Verso's comments to Lucia was an attempt to provoke Lucia into violating the IBAN from her side by getting her to comment on Chris. 24.149.117.220 (talk

) 21:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Read

WP:IBAN - it does literally say that he's allowed to contact an Admin if he feels the other person is breaking it. Alternatively, that is not why Lucia was blocked, she was blocked because she literally reverted one of his edits and referred to him in one of her edit summaries. Sergecross73 msg me

22:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Be that as it may, Chris's continued comments about Lucia,[6] even after warned that doing so is a violation of IBAN[7] should be more then sufficient grounds for a block. But Verso's actions at provoking Lucia into an IBAN violating should also not be ignored either. If no action is taken on Chris's comments, then no action should be taken on Lucia's comments (which doesn't even mention Chris)[8][9] either do to the attempted provocation[10][11]. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I am well-within

WP:BANEX to report the a suspected violation to Salvidrim. This brand new IP's appearance (today) seems to be no coincidence to Verso's opening of a sockpuppet investigation and for my support after encountering the IP-hopping editor multiple times. ChrisGualtieri (talk

) 00:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

IP hoping? Do you know what a dynamic IP is? It changes every once in a while or whenever there is a service outrage (like I had earlier this week do to the winter storms). Your comments, are impaling that some sort of nefarious activity is going on simply because I've not bothered to log into the named account. But there is no policy stating that I must have a named account or that I use one so long as I don't use both accounts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or otherwise violate community standards and policies. Also

WP:BANEX

only permits one notice, however you made several comments on that talk page about Lucia.

I consider Chris' post on my talkpage not to be an violation of policy per

WP:BANEX. He first posted something, I wrongly considered it an IBAN violation, he pointed out his BANEX justification, I accepted his concerns as potentially valid and posted at AN for community review. That's all. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉

02:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

As a side note, I request a courtesy deletion of the SPI case as it was filed under punitive intent and is being used against me (as demonstrated by Chris) in order to unfairly color my contributions. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Request it somewhere else, it's off-topic here. If anything, you deserve to be admonished for being passive-aggressively being difficult and repeatedly using "Christ" instead of "Chris" despite being asked not to. Sergecross73 msg me 01:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Passive aggressive? How have I being passive aggressive. By pointing that Verso was provoking Lucia, who didn't take the bait while Chris took it hook, line, and sinker, and is part of a pattern of behavior to stir up trouble for other users? By questioning whether there is a double standard being applied on the IBAN? And where have I've been asked "repeatedly" to not use "Christ", which is a typo BTW which I've now fixed? 24.149.117.220 (talk) 01:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Do a control f. There's still one that you haven't stealth-edit changed yet. Couldn't help but notice the one you just removed was done right after he just asked you to stop, which was in response to the one you haven't changed yet. Sergecross73 msg me 01:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I fixed the other one as well, so thanks for bringing that to my attention. However, I do not see anything in Chris's previous comment above, where he basically accused me of bad faith because of the SPI, where he said anything about the typo. The only reason I fixed both was because you, Sergecross73, was the one who mentioned it. And it is not a "stealth-edit" when I stated in my comment that I was fixing it. But by calling it as a "stealth-edit", you are implying that I'm engaged in disruptive behavior. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 02:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Just calling it like I see it. You did it. He asked you to stop. You did it again right away. I called you on it. You stealthily changed one instance. I called you on it. Then you admit to your stealth changes. Not sure how that makes me the bad guy, but however you'd like to twist it I suppose... Sergecross73 msg me 02:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Then you must need glasses. Both mistakes occurred before Chris even commented on them. But to his credit, he quickly realizing that the mistakes were mistakes and that complaining about it would reflect poorly on him. When an editor strikes their comments like that, we are suppose to pretend those comments didn't occurred. Also, I stated that I was correcting the first mistake.[12] But by calling it a "stealth-edit" and continuing to beet on a comment that was struck before anyone replied, it shows that you have a very strong bias in favor of Chris and probably should not be recommending actions be taken against Lucia or anyone else involved in this matter. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 13:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Chris hadn't struck the comments the last time I had read it and commented. Your complaints are a mess - you complain about that I didn't see things in the right order, then you go and make accusations that involve you not seeing the correct order of things. And how in the world would using the word "stealth-edit" in reference to you somehow shows a bias against Lucia? If anyone should be blamed for being biased or twisting words, it should be you, for coming to ludicrous conclusions like that... Sergecross73 msg me 17:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I would like the editor using the IP address 24.149.117.220 to address the Sock Puppet investigation in the comment section for that request. I would further like to request that the editor who now uses this IP for his editing goes to one of the venues I suggested prior to filing a request for Sock Puppet investigation (The suggested venues are the talk page of the Manual of Style or the talk page for the Mangaka article since these seem to me the right places to discuss whether or not the term Mangaka should be changed throughout Wikipedia.). Neither my interactions with Lucia Black nor my interactions with the editor using the IP address above were to solicit punitive action. It was not my intent to harass but rather to get clarity on the activities of each of these editors, extent of the underlying guidelines, policy decisions and advise from administrators. In my interactions with both these editors I have sought to correct what I considered unwise or improper behaviour and approached what I consider the right people to seek guidance on these matters. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 03:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Verso, SPI is not the place to discuss disputes, policies, or guidelines. And filing one to "force" such discussion is an abuse of process. The only reason to file an SPI case is if multiple accounts are being used to disrupt Wikipedia. But since you did not provide any evidence for disruption and it is obvious that the SPI case is baseless, there is no need for me to comment further on the specifics of the case. To an outside editor, it would appear to them that the SPI case was opened out of spite. That same spite can be implied in your agitation of Lucia by repeatedly bring up Chris's name in a matter that Chris wasn't even involved in, knowing full well of Chris's and Lucia's IBAN.

As for starting the discussion on the use of foreign terms that are not in common use in English, that is up to you and should be brought up at

mangaka as to what terminology is used in other articles. Also, it is not up to me to start a discussion on something that previously had a consensus, appears to still have a consensus, and conforms with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. 24.149.117.220 (talk

) 13:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• I object the subheading title added by 24.149.117.220.[13] Can someone make it neutral. Or collapse this as offtopic? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if this anonymous IP is TheFarix is about, but let me clarify that it the ban had passed and should move on from it. I dont care who didn't got banned, who should've got banned, its over, and i just want to stop this to be closed so i can feel secure on the discussions that i'm already involved in. I've warned Verso.Sciolto that i could not discuss anything related to Chris (without even trying to make him a subject) and he brought him up again. So with that also as a factor in all this, i do find it to be a valid reason of WP:POKING, although i personally see it more as WP:HOUND. Right now though, just accusations of attempt to game the system using the IBAN, which is a stretch. I really don't see a case anymore, all i see is that more smaller points being discussed left and right, and in the end there's nothing here saying I've done anything since the 1-week block. What other points do i have to address?Lucia Black (talk) 05:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Since this topic involves several other editors besides myself I hereby request that the header is edited again to include their names.Verso.Sciolto (talk) 10:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC) Verso.Sciolto (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Lucia Black, I do not know if this anonymous IP is the Farix either. It could be but since I can't be certain I've requested that the editor using that IP places his comments on that topic in the comment section of the Sock Puppet Investigation page and I have added a remark about this sub-thread and its original title in that page myself as well.

I've originally stated my opinions more forceful than I should have and although it looks to me like I'm only one out of perhaps several dozen editors who keep an eye on your contributions, some of whom have already commented in this thread, I nevertheless want to apologise and will obviously abide by any measures deemed appropriate for any transgressions (for Poking or Hounding or any other applicable category). Since you ask, however, what other points you can address? I wonder if you could answer my original question? I don't think you have yet. Why did you choose specifically Dragon Ball Z as the example to illustrate the point you were making? It still seems to me that you could have picked from a thousand other articles to illustrate your point. I could have ignored it but I do wonder, did you not expect that someone would question you on that point given the history of that particular article? As indicated above that was one of the things which rekindled the situation for me this time.

Editor using the IP 24.149.117.220 please use the suggested venues for further comments on those topics. The

Mangaka talk page is here and the Sock Puppet Investigation page is here

.

General comment. I still think the Ghost in the Shell topic as a whole is in a state of limbo because it seems to me that no editor can comfortably edit across all related articles. I noted that ChrisGualtieri was advised to stay away from that entire topic and the link I provided on the Ghost in the Shell reassessment page shows that two administrators involved with settling the aftermath offered that advise to him. I would like them to acknowledge that here in due course. In that same discussion a different administrator suggested a narrower restriction. Which ChrisGualtieri acknowledged. If my use of this example was misleading I apologise for that as well and will take the consequences. I also still think there is not enough clarity on the boundaries of the overlapping spheres in which Lucia Black and ChrisGualtieri can or can not edit. I hope that gets clarified soon. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC) a typo and two links.Verso.Sciolto (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

In reply to comments left below in the proposal section: I did not only ask questions: My comment on the Ghost in the Shell reassessment page is here It shows that in that comment I made several suggestions as well. a. That it is closed as failed because the current situation can't be considered stability for any article related to any Ghost in the Shell topic. b. That Lucia Black recuse herself from further editing in that area. (noting that ChrisGualtieri had been advised to do the same. c. That the articles needed to be evaluated by an editor who can edit without conflict or the appearance of meat puppetry (which I stated would be hard to find). I did not write that on behalf of ChrisGualtieri nor do my suggestions there favour his position. My suggestions indicate that he too should not edit in any of those articles but that a neutral editor reassess the Ghost in the Shell topics and make changes as required since I consider the topic as a whole in limbo as a result of previous splits and merges. Some of those articles are essentially frozen because the suggestion of meat puppetry has been raised in the previous discussions, in the statements clarifying the ban enactments and in the reactions to my comments.

I asked Lucia Black a question on the Anime and Manga topic regarding her expressed intent for participating in editing Sailor Moon related topics and her choice of example to illustrate her intentions for splits or merges. When Lucia Black responded to me she did not indicate that she had been a party to the previous conflict with Malkinann over Sailor Moon requiring mediation. She noted only that an other editor [Malkinann] had been causing problems. I replied on her talk page to write that she had been one of the parties involved because in my opinion Lucia Black has the tendency to see only the activities of other editors as problematic. She did not see fault with her end of the dispute with Malkinann. An editor who disappeared shortly after a mediation attempt was initiated and has not edited since.

In the same comment I once again questioned her choice of the example - Dragon Ball Z. Lucia Black has still not responded why she did not choose a less contentious example to illustrate that point. Above in the present discussion Lucia Black did not answer why she had not picked a different example but noted, quote:
"I brought up Dragon Ball Z as an example of how Sailor Moon fit the situation of being able to split (an issue Chris shouldn't have to begin with as he's pro-split for big series such as these). the discussion was NOT to discuss Dragon Ball Z in any way other than using it as an example as to allow a Sailor Moon (anime) article. Which means, Dragon Ball Z was not in danger of being re-merged anytime soon or being a major topic. And trying to make it look like it was cringe worthy for Chris to avoid is only falsifying information. Even if he did, i only brought up the other example to further allow a split of another article. And for the record: this was a topic long before Chris even joined Wikipedia."

A reply like that is exactly why I questioned Lucia Black's choice of example. Because of their mutual interaction ban, ChrisGualtieri can neither express disagreement nor agreement with Lucia Black's interpretation of the Dragon Ball Z situation. I did not say that ChrisGualtieri had been involved in earlier disputes over Sailor Moon but have already noted that, in my opinion Lucia Black should have avoided Sailor Moon because of the situation between her and Malkinann. I suggested that it would have been wiser to avoid any article with a troubled past and choose an entirely clean topic to return to editing.

I also wrote those comments to suggest that both ChrisGualtieri and Lucia Black should be more judicious in their choice of topics. I wrote that because I had noticed that ChrisGualtieri had expressed an interest in editing Sailor Moon as well - which I thought was an unwise decision. As indicated above I made note of all these points and my own prior disputes with Lucia Black in my e-mail to two editors. I later followed up with an other e-mail to a different editor, Salvidrim!. None of these people I contacted was ChrisGualtieri or Sergecross73. [signing] Verso.Sciolto (talk) 04:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[formatting]Verso.Sciolto (talk) 04:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[Malkinann's name inserted]Verso.Sciolto (talk) 04:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The flaws in your reason #1: Trying to make look like helpful advice, as a general rule Although Chris has been advised to avoid Ghost in the Shell articles, it was just normal "advice" and does not mean if he ever made an edit there, (depending on if it affects interaction ban) he will not be reprimanded for it. Same for. With that said, Ghost in the Shell (video game) is an area where neither of us have any disputes on whatsoever for me or Chris to consider WP:IBAN violations. I have been editing that article in the past without Chris asking an editor to review my edits. And thats merely because theres no controversy to Ghost in the Shell (video game).

Unlike Ghost in the Shell (manga) and Ghost in the Shell. those articles are articles that me and Chris both have issues with.

The flaws in your reason #2: Speaking for the other editors: This also goes along with the advice given, but mentioning Dragon Ball Z as an example, was merely an example. Dragon Ball Z is in no part the main discussion of wanting to split Sailor Moon (anime). and no, there's no other example that i could've thought of that allowed an adaptation to be split other than perhaps Yu-Gi-Oh! Duel Monsters although reasons why i didn't bring it up is because there was never really much of a consensus to have them split, unlike Dragon Ball Z. Which meant it could cause another discussion. But with Dragon Ball Z, the consensus was reached and it leaves less room for deviating from the main discussion.

Regardless if i referenced it in, the idea was to use Dragon Ball Z's history, not article-status. Dragon Ball Z was an anime that grabbed a lot of attention back when anime hit the mainstream, however manga did not, which is why Dragon Ball Z the anime was able to be more independent than its manga counterpart. I was only comparing the example of the too so that Sailor Moon could get its own anime article. So let me make it clear, Dragon Ball Z is not the main topic. Chris Gualtieri is free to edit that article without me getting in the way.

With that said, you trying to say that Chris was tempted to be part of the discussion doesn't matter. If he was or he wasn't, trying to make it look like Dragon Ball Z was a bait for Chris is ludicrous because it was only for one example. ANd again, Chris should have no issue with another split, and just because it was mentioned, it does not mean that i'm interfering the areas that Chris needs to be involved in. With that said, if Chris did the exact same thing. I guarantee you, you're not going to say a word. so put things in perspective.

The flaws in your reason #3: Bad-faith there's no meat-puppet here, and there's no evidence of it. and we've been warned before hand to not even try it because they will know. So why even risk it? Also, where's the meat puppet coming from? whether i asked in GAR for a close, the GAR consensus was already for closing. and WP:VG have mentioend how fed up with the GAR they are in the first place. You're entire basis is still in bad-faith. and when we question you, you revert to "i simply wanting to ask about the situation". but you weren't "just asking" you were trying to inform the other editor on the situation and you tried to do it WITH bad-faith. me on the other hand, i came in here knowing nothing on the issue at hand, until i had to do my own investigation.Lucia Black (talk) 05:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

1. Since this leaves Ghost in the Shell as a whole topic in limbo I didn't think it appropriate for you to comment even on the reassessment of one part and I noted in the comment that I suggested you recuse yourself from further edits. Several editors keep an eye on Ghost in the Shell topics and would have dealt with the processes without your further input. In my opinion you should have avoided the topic altogether and picked a clean topic for your return. I did not then nor do I now solicit sanctions for your decision to edit there but will note that ChrisGualtieri could not express either agreement or disagreement with your interpretation at that point in time.

2. Thank you for answering this question. I disagree with your assertion that a less contentious alternative example could not have been found. In your response you suggested that etiquette was optional and when I asked you to change your example after informing you that ChrisGualtieri could not comment on your interpretation you didn't do so but asserted bad faith on my part and accused me of baiting you into commenting. I asked you because they seemed like bad choices to me and I explained why. It was not done to bait you or to solicit sanctions. The topic of Dragon Ball Z is intricately linked to the disputes on merges and splits involving you, ChrisGualtieri, Ryulong and a whole host of other editors. Why not avoid that altogether? Because merges and split discussions are among the most contentious topics - in my opinion - you should have picked a cleaner topic for your return and you could have picked a different example if avoiding conflict was your goal.

3. The conditions of the ban stipulate proxy editing - reverts of previous edits have been contested on those grounds and leave the topics as virtually unapproachable, imo - and as noted above several people, including yourself have now accused me of proxy editing on behalf of ChrisGualtieri. I did not choose the topics you selected for your return and I did not choose the topics ChrisGualtieri has been asking administrators and other editors about either. I could have ignored these things but I did choose to question your decisions and approached administrators as well.Verso.Sciolto (talk) 06:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

again, you're speaking for ChrisGualtieri and even if he did have issues with my edits, the IBAN is there. But keep in mind, that Ghost in the Shell (video game) is still an article that we can both edit without problem so long as i don't remove the content he's added, and vice versa. Not only that, but all my edits were in favor of the GAR. Which was only grammar issues. Like i said, I've been editing that article without problem, and even prior to the IBAN, i never received a single revert from Chris regarding that article other than one dispute that was handled quickly. Keep in mind, advice isn't enforced. Which is why we've been topic banned from Ghost in the Shell (manga) alone. not any other topic. if we do edit, we edit with discretion of the other editor like i have with Ghost in the Shell (video game).

For example: Sergecross said that so long as the other doesn't remove content that the other provided, there is no action to be done. (then again, when i stated if the other editor removed the content, he said to let it go. so it shows some fault on his part for taking such a bias approach)

I don't need to clarify Dragon Ball Z any further with you. its not the main subject, Sailor Moon is. and you're pushing your own personal ideas. this is not gaming anything. the discussing for splitting it was done years ago, before chris was involved. i only "enforced" the idea more with Dragon Ball Z as time passed since that time.

You're actually being accused of harassment more than proxy editing. and that's because of how you approached this. Rather than asking an admin "neutrally" you've done a lot of accusations, and it shows throughout this entire discussion. And in the end, Chris tried to game the system. and i wonder if you care at all. I know you don't. you've admitted in the past you have a great interest in "my" edits.Lucia Black (talk) 07:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't restrict my comments to you to issues involving only you and ChrisGualtieri. My comment to you regarding Sailor Moon was because of the previous disputes between you and Malkinann.

I'm being accused of harassing and also of editing on behalf of ChrisGualtieri. I've been addressing both those topics.

I have never hidden my interest in your edits. I've stated that my own comments to you this time were were voiced too strongly and have apologised for doing so but disagree that my interest in your edits is unhealthy given our shared interest in the Nausicaa articles. When I approached the administrators I disclosed my previous conflicts with you as well as the other topics mentioned above.

I did not speak on behalf of ChrisGualtieri but find it impossible to talk about these topics without mentioning him or being confronted with the previous conflicts. That has been one of the primary points. Boundaries. I've stated that I didn't edit on behalf of ChrisGualtieri and stand by that statement. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 07:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[edited - sentences added]Verso.Sciolto (talk) 07:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Why is Malkinann an issue here? the editor vanished years ago, and was the only editor out there that was against the merger/split. Right now, you've extended this discussion over Sailor Moon over just using an example of Dragon Ball Z, but now you're saying that its because i've disputed with Malkinann in the past. why does that matter?

How is this relevant at all? are you just mad that i brought up the discussion and just want to make a case out of it?Lucia Black (talk) 08:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Malkininann vanished shortly after disputes between the two of you. I've stated my reason from the very start. I thought you made unwise choices in your selection of articles to edit and the examples you picked to illustrate a point. I questioned if it wouldn't be possible to select completely clean topics where you had not encountered any previous conflicts at all. I think I made that clear in my comment you deleted from your talk page and in my replies to you on my talk page right from the start of this. Particularly this sentence: "Are there really no other subject you can both choose to edit which don't cause potential overlap in editing spaces, discussions and commentary?" excerpted from our exchanges on my talk page.Verso.Sciolto (talk) 08:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

thats not your call, and you're only harassing me at this point.Lucia Black (talk) 08:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

New proposals? New blocks/bans?

And once again, these discussions have devolved into pure chaos. When will the community have enough of this? I really don't think it'll stop until something major is done. Anything short of that just leads us back to these ridiculous time-sink arguments.

I think the problem right now is the interaction ban alone seems to lend itself to "

". There's too much "claiming of territory" and mind games going on, where one seems to start working on something purely to keep the other away from it.

I think its been established that Lucia cannot "play nice with others". Should she be topic banned from any article that falls under the scope of

? This is where every single one of there spats have occurred.

I'm open to other ideas as well, but I think we need something more objectively hard-lined than this constantly changing interaction ban. Otherwise I think we're just leading down the path of either infinite bickering, or both editors getting an indef block, which would be a shame, because I don't feel they both deserve that. Sergecross73 msg me 17:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

There really is nothing here, other than a few editors chose to harass me. If you had enough of this, then by all means, don't get involved anymore. Not saying to kick you out, but if you don't like it, other more neutral admins can get involved. The fact that you get involved and are fed up with discussing shows just how compromised your opinion or will to listen is. and its easy to see throughout the discussion. You have not addressed a single point other than the ones the anonymous IP has brought in which weren't completely relevant. Most points were ignored because you've had a problem on how i approached it. which you're going to have to get used to if someone makes me the subject of a discussion, and quite frankly, i dont act any more different than you Serge.

Salvidrim claimed i'm trying to game the system of the IBAN by using "Sailor Moon" article, which I still find a difficult to even consider a valid point. The only thing that the anonymous IP did make a point was that this editor was harassing me by

WP:HOUNDING

and as much as Verso.Sciolto says that he just wanted to get an answer, i highly doubt it considering he went through the email, and he continued to bait me into talking about Chris.

look at this for what it really is. One editor misinforming others, in which somehow all made simultaneous reports to Salvidrim (doesn't that sound not even a bit suspicious if Verso.Sciolto just wanted to get some advice on the situation, yet everyone manage to find the exact same admin?) And here we are...there's no gaming the system (at least on my part considering i provided enough info that it was indeed Chris who was trying to do that, Serge, are you really going to ignore this bit of info for the 6th time?) My edits are completely of my own decision and i don't have Chris in mind except for information that he alone has added so that i don't violate the IBAN.

more restrictions, would be because other people gamed the admins for knowing how fed up they are, and how quick and easy they want the discussion to be over. and really...lets look at this objectively. What have i really done after the 1-week ban? nothing really. SO take a breather and lets look at this for what it really is.Lucia Black (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

None of that is right. The problem is that people keep coming to Admin like myself and Salvidrim, to complain about you...and most of the time their complaints are very valid. We can't just go and ignore that. The fact of the matter is, almost directly after we went through a huge discussion that lead to your interaction ban, you violated on purpose to get your way, something you admitted to yourself. Now, there are reports of you

gaming the system. I'm sure you'd love it we just dropped everything and let you do whatever you want, as you've suggested above, but we can't just delude ourselves into thinking that nothing is wrong here. Sergecross73 msg me

00:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

You haven't addressed any of the point I've made....i provided info on how Chris indeed attempted to Game the system and again. I'll just bring that up to a more neutral admin, because that is a violation, and it is clear. Keep in mind, none of what these editors have emailed Salvidrim, none of it is being made public. So i don't know what they've said specifically, i don't know what other issues are being brought up. The only think i do know is what Salvidrim himself brought up, which is the example of A) Ghost int he Shell (video game) GAR closure request (by consensus of WP:VG) and B) My involvement of Sailor Moon articles (which the fact that Chris attempted to game the system with Sailor Moon himself, shows so much more on the other editors that came up to Salvidrim and trying to make it look like i was gaming the system).

So keeping account that these editors emailed Salvidrim about Sailor Moon and presumably knowing full-well Chris was actually the one trying to game the system (not me), I'm willing to think there are editors out there playing some form of meat puppet or gang/tagteam. and this is not ludicrous idea as Verso.Sciolto admitted to emailing these editors rather than needing the only 1 admin and discussing it publicly. And saying their complaints are valid doesn't really provide much when nothing specific is being brought up, and these editors (right now its just 1 or 2) being kept anonymously. I'm willing to bet, that if they came out publicly, a form of history and bias realted to me will be obvious.Lucia Black (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

And how convenient to bother you and Salvidrim, rather any other admin out there. Yes there's something wrong, and its not me trying to game the system, but I've addressed all the accusations that came to light. And other editors have further cleared my name throughout this discussion. only one making a fuss is Verso.Sciolto (in which switches from accusations, to just wanting to get advice on the situation). At this point, you're going to have to address everything I've stated.Lucia Black (talk) 00:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Great, another winding, 2,000+ byte response to a question no one asked, further bogging down any real discussion. Someone alert me if a proposal is made. I'm looking for inputs from others, not arguing circles infinitely with Lucia. Sergecross73 msg me 01:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

You know what...i'm going to ask another editor on the situation. because its clear you're only focused on me, despite so much proof here that there is a bigger issue than just me. does it relate to me? sure. but is it me that's being disruptive? i'll be asking another admin.Lucia Black (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Feel free...but you do realize we're currently already talking on the Administrator's Noticeboard, right? If you really want more input, then stop bogging down the discussion with these massive comments that that make it such an effort for someone catch up enough to give their input. Sergecross73 msg me 02:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

No. that's not going to happen. every point i make is relevant. if you admins don't want the trouble to listen, then don't listen, but if you're not going to listen at all you might aswell not make a vote.Lucia Black (talk) 02:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't you see that's exactly what happens though? I mean, don't get me wrong, I believe you're typically in the wrong. But anyone who would just maybe be interested in hearing you out, probably sees all of your text, says "no thanks", and doesn't !vote. It happens all over the project. You seem to forgot that we're all volunteers, and have no obligation to read these long, winding, rehashed bickering. Sergecross73 msg me 02:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

If you're going to volunteer, live up to the responsibility. if not, then don't. that means you Serge, because you've chosen to ignore a great deal of information. not just from me, but from the anonymous IP and from Knowledgekid.

Here's what you've been ignoring: Chris attempted to Game the system with Sailor Moon. How? i'll tell you how.

Knowledgekid publicly asked for help, and i have agreed to help him along with another editor Sjones23 in WP:ANIME. However, Chris about 5 hours later tries to bypass WP:ANIME discussion on sailor moon and asks Knowledgekid directly onto his talkpage. Now if any admin caught me doing something like that, they would've banned me on the spot for violating WP:IBAN.

But it gets worst. other editors made it come to light by making it look like "I'm" the one trying to game the system with that article. And it doesn't add up with Sailor Moon...because ChrisGualtieri had no involvement prior to the discussion that i came in. It really looks like a variation of WP:GANG and WP:MEAT. Verso.Sciolto for example has attempted to make me break the IBAN by discussing ChrisGualtieri more than once. And i refused to even mention that he was a topic at all and refused to discuss such an issue at all with him.

Now lets say you call all this accusations on my part WP:CONSPIRACY, but you can't ignore that there are holes on these editor's accusations. whether they intended to or not, they tried to make it look like i'm gaming the system over an article that didn't affect the IBAN at all.Lucia Black (talk) 02:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Unbelievable.

That's your mentality? That approach has already gotten you 2 (or 3?) blocks, an interaction ban, and a ban from starting discussions at AN/ANI. Its only a matter of time before you get yourself indefinitely blocked. I only hope that ChrisG can keep himself from getting pulled into one as well. Sergecross73 msg me

03:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Am i wrong though? Did Chris bypass public discussion of Sailor Moon by to a certain editors talkpage? Did Verso.Sciolto immediately get involved after discovering that i was part of Sailor Moon discussion and tried to make it look like "I'm gaming the system" when Chris was not part of the article? Did Verso.Sciolto emailed several editors rather than asking just one specific admin? Did Verso.Sciolto attempted several times to discuss ChrisGualtieri even though i've warned him that i'm not going to discuss it with him further?

You can say "Lucia Black is unbelievable" but that makes these points WRONG? Didn't this all occur? You haven't brought up a single point Serge for why i'm wrong. all you have been doing is simply stating it. I haven't gamed the system, and theres little to no evidence here at all. All you have been saying is "editors e-mailed us, they have a valid point" but none of those points are present in this discussion. I can guarantee you if i report this to a neutral editor on what just happened (unaware of the WP:AN), some form of block WILL occur to ChrisG.

So go ahead and trivialize this. But what i've said is true, Chris indeed tried to bypass public discussion of Sailor Moon. And whats worst is editors tried to make it look like the other way around, and i'm not so sure you got these e-mails either. I'm sure Salvidrim has them, but you've been referencing them, but don't provide the backbone (their "valid points") of what they've said.

Lets be honest...i have alot to say because i'm involved. you dont have much to say at all, and there's a reason why.Lucia Black (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break to add a proposal

Apart from some discussion on the last ANI (gawd how many does that make) concerning Lucia, where I supported an IBAN, I've had no other interaction in any other space with her. Given the state of things here, I can see that many editors are loath to propose the obvious choices, obvious to me any way. So, the way I see it, though I'm sure some may disagree (and I'm sure I'll get a long reply from Lucia on this, but it is what it is)

1. Taking this whole fiasco to ARBCOM OR
2. An indefinite topic ban from all articles under WP:ANIME, violations of which will incur and immediate indefinite block OR
3. an indefinite block right off the bat

Of course, these are just my views at the moment, which I may have further thoughts about, once I've had breakfast. Blackmane (talk) 10:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

actually this will be a short one. Can anyone here properly explain how i even "gamed the system"? Only Verso.Sciolto has provided (a very poor) discussion on it. There's no gaming the system within the IBAN. Honestly....this particular AN report perplexes me the most. And quite frankly, the reason why this hasn't been quick and simple, is because i continue to ask this. What exactly am i doing?

Nyttend didn't see anything in particular, neither did Knowledgekid, and anonymous IP has suspected foul play from Verso.Sciolto (and i agree considering how the discussion has shifted from violating IBAN to discussing a problematic article due to a retired editor). The only editors here active are Sergecross (who again, has trivialized every comment i made so far, but continues to not add reason behind it), Verso.Sciolto (who tries to reason, but does a poor job at it) and then Chrisgualtieri...(who as you see in his final comments, made every shot he could by discussing about the irrelevant past).

I know as i continue to talk (regardless if i'm right or wrong) my view weakens, but the further it gets ignored, the more i feel like it has to be addressed. so i ask again "what exactly am i doing thats gaming the IBAN?

look down in the summary of all the points provided.Lucia Black (talk) 10:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The comments I made, on this page, on the Anime and Manga Page, on your talk page and on my talk page, always contained references to Sailor Moon and the previous conflicts between you and Malkinann. It was among the initial reasons which prompted me to suggest that you should have chosen different topics and examples for your return to editing. The discussion here didn't shift in that direction, as far as I'm concerned that previous situation involving yourself and Malkinann was always part of this. I think my explanations here are born out by my original comments and my comment on the Ghost in the Shell reassessment page comment as I consider them to have been unwise in their choice of topics than that will hopefully be evaluated properly. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 11:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)as well. I hope my comments will be considered in the light of my own explanations and not merely from the perspective of bad faith explanations as offered by a few editors above. I don't think the anonymous IP editor gave an accurate summary of the situation, starting with an erroneous description of the timeline of events. I did not pick the topics selected by Lucia Black or ChrisGualtieri but I did elect to comment on their choices. If I was as unwise in that decision to

Orginal comment appended A subsequent edit appears to have resulted in a change of this message: "The comments I made, on this page, on the Anime and Manga Page, on your talk page and on my talk page, always contained references to Sailor Moon and the previous conflicts between you and Malkinann. It was among the initial reasons which prompted me to suggest that you should have chosen different topics and examples for your return to editing. The discussion here didn't shift in that direction, as far as I'm concerned that previous situation involving yourself and Malkinann was always part of this. I think my explanations here are born out by my original comments and my comment on the Ghost in the Shell reassessment page as well. I hope my comments will be considered in the light of my own explanations and not merely from the perspective of bad faith explanations as offered by a few editors above. I don't think the anonymous IP editor gave an accurate summary of the situation, starting with an erroneous description of the timeline of events. I did not pick the topics selected by Lucia Black or ChrisGualtieri but I did elect to comment on their choices. If I was as unwise in that decision to comment as I consider them to have been unwise in their choice of topics than that will hopefully be evaluated properly. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 11:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC) " Verso.Sciolto (talk) 12:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Let me clarify that you baited me twice to discuss Chrisgualtieri both on my talkpage and yours. Malkinann was barely a topic (on your page, not mine). And even then, I'm not breaking any rules with bringing back an old discussion (which had consensus to do). Right now, Everyone (and even Chrisgualtieri) is taking advantage of that particular article and claiming that i'm gaming the IBAN. It was very UNWISE. So you must clarify to everyone in this discussion that Sailor Moon specifically was not a subject of gaming the IBAN as others believed it to be.

As for ghost in the shell (video game), neither is that, only that Chris has been "advised" (not warned) to avoid the Ghost in the Shell topic as a whole. I have not touched Chris's contributions in that article nor have i brought up a discussion to it to tempt Chris. And that's because that specific article was never an issue between us. and i get that you want to act like it could, but in the end you're going to have to let Chrisgualtieri make his own comments. He's allowed to here, and he has not mentioned anything wrong with the actions I've done in Ghost in the Shell (video game) YET. But even so, no disputes have been done, no large-scale potentially controversial edits have been done to Ghost in the Shell (video game). And ignoring a precaution isn't gaming the IBAN. that article has always been my safe-haven at least when it comes to editing Ghost in the Shell articles (the other is Stand Alone Complex).Lucia Black (talk) 11:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I questioned why you picked the Dragon Ball Z example because it would - in my opinion- inevitably necessitate someone mentioning ChrisGualtieri and that example would almost inevitably prompt ChrisGualtieri's own interest in commenting on that topic. My comments on that topic were not meant to bait you but rather to question you about your choices and to persuade you to choose different topics. The conflicts between you and Malkinann required mediation which was unresolved because Malkinann disappeared. I already indicated above in a previous comment that there was no connection with ChrisGualtieri and the conflicts between you and Malkinann. My comments were not restricted to the interaction between you and ChrisGualtieri but your decisions as a whole.

I consider the Ghost in the Shell topics unwise to revisit in any form because they require an editor independent of the conflicts. Advise is given to avoid restarting conflicts. Since ChrisGualtieri had been advised to recuse himself by two administrators it seemed proper to suggest you to do the same in order for other editors to clean the aftermath. My comments were meant to be pre-emptive not bait and were not designed to solicit sanctions. You have amply clarified your position and I have attempted to clarify mine several times as well. Maybe time to give potential readers time to catch up. [indent]Verso.Sciolto (talk) 11:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I have not broken a single rule here. And i have no idea what the word "recuse" means. But all i will say is that i didn't break a rule here. and you shouldn't be causing trouble where it doesn't matter to. If no one is fighting, no one should. but Sailor Moon is something Chris si using as you can see in his final comments. and right now, you have to clarify to everyone that. I dont want explanations, i want you to fix the problem you caused.Lucia Black (talk) 11:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Recuse, the way I meant it in that comment was for you to halt all involvement in Ghost in the Shell related topics. To step down and walk away. I did not choose the topics you selected and will let others decide if I was unwise for commenting the way I did. My suggestions and question were written to prevent rekindling not cause it. (edit to add: I will repeat that I did not write any of my comments to solicit punitive sanctions.)Verso.Sciolto (talk) 12:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Verso.Sciolto (talk) 12:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

You should know yourself. Because you did bring up 3 anonymous editors, and in the end your reason. And theres no reason why i should stop editing those articles, or at least the ones that Chris doesn't contribute (so long as i dont make any big controversial edits). again, i'm not going to step down, especially in articles that Chris has had no prior issue with me in. And you should advise them anyways. Because no one is listening to me. and you dont have to say its "unwise" but clarifying the issue. No one here is touching the topic. only you.Lucia Black (talk) 12:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Because my own motives for getting involved in this situation have become topics of the discussion I can no longer do that. Only two of the editors I contacted yesterday have not commented yet. For one of them it may be a long time, if at all, before that editor can address this. I'm sorry to be cryptic but that editor is unable to comment at the moment but I can assure you it isn't ChrisGualtieri. One other editor has not responded. Salvidrim!, as you are aware, has opened the topic on this page.

A reason for you to stop editing any of the topics mentioned would be to make a fresh start. Free from pervious histories and any and all previous conflicts. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 12:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Some fresh start, you're the cause of this. And you've caused more problems by your approach too. And no, i dont need to stop editing Ghost inthe Shell-related articles to stop. and as much as you claim you had good intentions, i cannot see it that way, when you change your reasoning left and right.Lucia Black (talk) 13:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• :::: What happened with my previous comment? Did something go wrong when comments were added afterwards? The signature is now in the middle of a sentence and the last sentence appears to have been scrambled. How can that be fixed? I've appended the original comment above. Can someone have a look that? Verso.Sciolto (talk) 12:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Final comment by Chris

Lucia Black is the editor who famously yelled "GIVE ME WHAT I DESERVE OR YOULL SEE ME MAKE A BIGGER SCENE OR GET OUT!!!" and "youre not going to make both sides happy. Because the only way to make one side happy is to make the other recognize their faults and apologize for them. I hate (ChrisGualtieri), and I hate (ChrisGualtieri) with a passion. I see (ChrisGualtieri)s name on my talkpage and I see red. We've all been down the

harken back to the very circumstances which lead to Lucia Black's first topic-ban and a one-way interaction ban. Forget your crazy conspiracies - anyone who frequents ANI will recall all the discussions related to these disputes.

Right now, this is sucking more than throwing away 40 hours worth of work. No sane individual would wade into this mess willingly, its why getting 3rd opinions, RFCs, and several Dispute Resolutions and even mediation failed. Every response begets another response from Lucia, its the

) 07:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

irrelevant, and just mid-slinging. but not that any editor cares, because to them, i deserve it.Lucia Black (talk) 07:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Chris, this has nothing to do with last word....this has to do with clarifying what needs to be clarified. in WP:ANI, theres no "last word". i'm only clarifying what needs to be clarified.Lucia Black (talk) 07:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Reasons why we should close this (for those who don't want to read walls of text, allow me to summarize)

There's a lot of accusations here, but nothing to prove action-worthy (which means the accusations are based on bad-faith and not facts). And as much as Sergecross is so dead-set into believing i'm wrong and these editors provided valid reasons, the editors he's talking about are still anonymous editors that all simultaneously e-mailed Salvidrim!. And he refuses to elaborate. Whenever i do bring up points, he acts like i provided nothing and over trivializes the points i brought up. However, not once has he denied them to be false.

Now, claiming i'm trying to "game the system" with the IBAN, is a very VERY big stretch. there are two "evidence" these editors have brought up: Sailor Moon in which Chris had no prior involvement yet he chose to force his show in even after discovering i was involved by bringing it up to the talkpage. I still at this moment cannot understand why Sailor Moon is such an issue when it comes to gaming the IBAN. And i still don't understand why these editors choose to ignore that specific situation. i'm sure you all know that is a cear attempt to game the IBAN.

The only supposed reason is by Verso.Sciolto when i provided

. Now, although i had prior connection to Dragon Ball Z discussion (and no, i was not topic-blocked because of it. so don't believe that), I did not make the focus on Dragon Ball Z (such as i would not want to bring up Dragon Ball Z as a main discussion and try to game the system by keeping Chris uninvolved).

the next is Ghost in the Shell (video game) which i have had no real disputes with Chris in the past. The GAR consensus was to close as not GA listed. in which I've decided to help it move forward. Verso.Sciolto about previous topic-ban from Ghost in the Shell (manga) and were only advised to avoid the topic overall. But that's simply because Ghost in the Shell and Ghost in the Shell (manga) is a serious dispute that never reached consensus. Ghost in the Shell (video game) is of no concern to Chris when it comes to my edits, so long as i don't remove any content he provided (and lets face it, 80-70% of the content was provided by me).

Now i dont know what these "5" other disputes. the only one i can think of is

RfC, which existed prior to the IBAN. regardless this is more about how two irrelevant TV series are merged together due to previous GAR stating that the animes were two large. NOW if i'm banned from discussing it, so be it. but i just came back from my 1-week ban and haven't provided a comment since. Either way, Chris showed no interest in it prior to the IBAN (and the RfC was there for a really long time). Why he brings it up now? Probably sour grapes.

Right now i'm deeply insulted by this AN report. mostly because this allowed Chris to interact with me and just promote past discussions (keep in mind all those discussions brought up by Chris, i did in fact offered the editor a peace offering which didn't work because he still chooses to allow our perspective in editing PERSONAL. and i have the links to prove it. all you have to do is ask if relevant) but also because admins refuse to listen. and when they do listen, they over-trivialize without reason. Only a few editors actually questioned the AN report.

The only two editors that defended me was anonymous IP claiming to TheFarix, but despite being disruptive by claiming to be him (if he's not), he still provided clear points. and i don't think they should be ignored (the only time Serge decided to use reasoning) and the points i'm mainly talking about is how Verso.Sciolto attempted to harass me and intended bait me to discuss ChrisGualtieri despite being banned from having any interaction with him.

These are all just baseless discussions....i just came back from my 1-week block. I've been careful on editing or editing the contributions of the other editor. And all they have are links, but they don't provide the connection of how its Gaming the system, and when they try its a big stretch.Lucia Black (talk) 08:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Clarification of IBAN

• I think the IBAN must be clarified, otherwise we are going to have here kilobytes of irrelevant text every second week, similar to what we have now. Possible options:

1. LB and CG may not mention each other (including each other's actions) on any English Wikipedia page;
2. LB and CG may only mention each other at ANI in relation of specific incidents and may not address each other, only third parties.

Otherwise we are likely to have repetitions of the situations like above, when LB discusses CG at large, but the first reply of CG would get him blocked because of IBAN.

An alternative is to community ban both of them, but I am generally not a supporter of community bans, and will not support it here.

I request that involved parties do not edit this subsections to avoid flooding.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

What you are describing in points 1 and 2 are already what is in effect. Salvidrim just allowed to Lucia to comment this time to defend herself, but outside this discusion, we're already there. Sergecross73 msg me 14:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, then may be next time restricting any defences to 500 words, like ArbCom enforcement, would be a good idea. Right now we have shit all over the place.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree. Also, I think another discussion, one with the interaction in place, should occur, so Admin/others can actually discuss what to do. That was the intention from the beginning, not to open up another avenue for all this mudslinging. Sergecross73 msg me 17:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Serge don't you think that the same multiple editors that have had problems with Lucia in the past coming forward again to pin her down is a bit strange? Im not saying Lucia is innocent but I believe there is like she said more to the picture than just her. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Also seeing that some of the admin are

WP:ARBCOM Lucia would need to be looked at by non involved admin. - Knowledgekid87 (talk

) 22:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Nothing strange at all, she has a poor grasp on many policies and is terrible with working with others. It makes perfect sense really. Also, it's the opinion of uninvolved admin that enacted her various topic bans, interaction bans, etcetera, so I welcome it. Sergecross73 msg me 02:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Outside Proposal

For repeatedly wasting many volunteers precious time, for deliberately creating battlegrounds, for deliberately violating Interaction bans, the editor Lucia Black is indefinitely blocked until such time that they present an acceptable plan for how to avoid creating non-collegial editing environments/hounding/harassment that is accepted by a broad consensus of editors at the Administrators Noticeboard in a discussion to last no less than 48 hours. Should the indefinite block be successfully appealed, Lucia Black is to be under a community imposed 1-strike parole with a default back to the indefinite block or strengthening to a community ban.

1. Support as proposer I'm tired of the semi-weekly "Lucia Black disruption" threads. The Anime topic space has made it's mark at AN* multiple times in conjunction with other editors. The other disputants have put away the deadly weapons, but it appears we have one editor who needs to be firmly sanctioned. Temporary blocks have not worked in the past (as Lucia was under a block in October), interaction bans have not worked, I doubt that topic bans would work because Lucia has demonstrated that they're willing to wait for an editor to make a mistake and spring a "And here's a bunch of policy violations they've also committed" therefore it is time to block untill the level of clue improves. Hasteur (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Lucia only commented here because she was invited to defend her-self, other than that there is no proof that she has done any wrongdoing since the last time she got unblocked. Not saying she has a clean record but I do not think she needs to be sanctioned anymore for things she has already done in the past pre-recent block. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Knowledgekid87's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
4. Support, Oppose and Neutral (Bear with me...) -- Support: because far too much time has been wasted in shitstorms surrounding this user and an indef-block, although draconian, would be a definitive solution. Oppose: because I remain unconvinced the current situation demonstrated the failure of the IBAN remedy and the user has undeniable content contributions which benefit the readers. Neutral: because I personally would rather apply an indef-block and be rid of this issue entirely, but it would be irreponsible for me to indef-block while believing the block could be justifiably overturned by another admin. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
5. Support - Look at one of her latest post. She gives a response "for people who don't want to read a wall of text, and then proceeds to write a 4,000+ wall of text rant, once again recycling all of her
   WP:IDHT thoughts. I think that best encapsulates her lack of awareness and inability to stop. These weekly Lucia threads are going to continue until we stop it, because she just can't. Sergecross73 msg me
   02:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Closing comments

The massive size of this whole thread makes it thoroughly useless: we've had tangent after tangent and wall of text after wall of text. We can't work with this; it's just going to go on and on and on without resolution. Either Lucia needs to be sanctioned quickly, or she needs to be told "no sanctions" quickly — letting this hang over her head isn't fair either way. As I said up above, I saw nothing instantly warranting sanctions, but I wasn't commenting on whether I thought long-term patterns of editing were good or problematic; I haven't investigated any of the claims, and I couldn't care less about how this ends up, except of course that I want to see people treated fairly and an encyclopedia being improved. With this in mind, and after getting emailed input from Salvidrim (who started this thread), I'm closing this procedurally, since just about none of it can end up in any kind of resolution. The sole exception is the outside proposal. I'm going to copy/paste the proposal and everyone's responses into a new section, where it can be discussed in reference to this long discussion but without being tied to it. Nyttend (talk) 03:40, 27 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.

---

A specific version of the page was clearly agreed to on the talk page by multiple people, including well respected Joshua Jonathan. Devanampriyakeeps reverting these edits. HathaYogin (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I see two reversions over three days by Devanampriya, same as HathaYogin. I also see no attempt to discuss the matter with Devanampriya (and no notification of this thread as CLEARLY stated is required). Instead of running to tattle on someone when they do something you don't like please first try to work things out by talking with them. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

It is up to Devanampriya to discuss things on the talk page. There is not a single comment by Devanampriya on the entire talk page! He is not a regular editor on the Yoga page. How can we force someone else to engage in dialogue? HathaYogin (talk) 05:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

And it is up to you to make an effort to resolve conflicts before seeking intervention... A friendly note on someone's talk page works wonders; talking about "forcing" people do things does not. It is quite possible that Devanampriya is not even aware of the discussion on the talk page. Please try to

assume good faith about other editors. --ThaddeusB (talk

) 05:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification, ThaddeusB. It's surprising that a two day old user has the sophistication to go to ANI at the drop of a hat and is suddenly supporting a "respected and senior editor" (with whom I'm in DRN for another issue as we speak). The timing is even more fortuitous considering I just asked an admin to tell said "respected and senior editor" to stop stealth editing during DRN...I suppose that's why I always preferred sandals to sox...Anyhow, I know admins are very busy, so I don't want to waste any more of your time. Good day, sir. Devanampriya (talk) 05:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

You're out of line here, Devanampriya, with the term "stealth editing". I removed info I'd added myself, in response to Bladesmulti, with a clear edit-summary. Which can't be said of you, twice removing a {{dubious}}-tag diff diff without mentioning this in his edit-summary, and changing "Vishnu, the Vedic god of preservation" to "Vishnu, the Hindu god of preservation" diff, also without mentioning this in his edit-summary. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

It's just dawning on me, that you seem to be accusing me of sock-puppetry. Now you're really out of line. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Wow Joshua, that quarter dropped slowly! :) Devanampriya, you better put your money where your mouth is. You're accusing a named account of having another registered sock--you either file an SPI, or you take it back and apologize. Or you do nothing at all and lose a bunch of respect. Drmies (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I usually don't support when people make changes to main page(especially lead) and then challenge others to prove them wrong, especially when information is already established for weeks/months, and/or has sources/obviousness. Neither I support any changes made by 3 days old account for such huge articles. It is only one page, and somewhat not really controversial edit either. Don't know what is this fuss about. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
• Based on the report at
  WP:AN3, I blocked both editors. I took a narrow view of the matter. Otherwise, I would have gotten bogged down in incredible content/conduct sniping. The report filed at SPI consists of walls of text by both "sides".--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 19:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) Any reason why Devanampriya and JJ are blocked for different amounts of time? Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 20:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Devanampriya was blocked before for edit warring, whereas Joshua had a clean block log. BTW, another editor (now blocked independently) brought up the issue of staleness on my talk page. I would normally not have blocked for a battle that occurred a few days ago, but both editors were making such a big deal out of their respective positions in so many forums. The report at SPI alone is enough to make you dizzy. So, I made an exception to my usual practice.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:26, 26 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.

---

Please check history, why other user created userpage to other user ?--Musamies (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it, the named user hasn't edited for 5 months. Probably a throwaway alt account. Ansh666 20:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Yep, and that account is now blocked (not here to build an encyclopedia). I deleted that user page: we're not a dating site. Let's close this--all is well. Thanks Musamies, and can I just say that your user name is almost as cool as mine? Drmies (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

You broke the rules! Thank you. Nyttend (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

---

Just wondering how do users prevent Admins from stalking them? In particular ones with possible multiple admin accounts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ephestion (talk • contribs) 19:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, you could stop editing in a disruptive fashion requiring your account to be blocked. You could also not make unfounded and obviously frivolous accusations of socking when multiple editors and admins have informed you that your edits are disruptive. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes. admin abuse. Killiondude (talk) 23:28, 24 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.

---

Could someone please csd-u1 the pages currently listed in User:NE_Ent/sandbox? (Somehow I've ended up staying longer than I expected, and have rearranged my user talk page archives into yearly). NE Ent 20:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

They're all done. This is hilarious - user popped in to make a few edits in 2006, and never left. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out if I like this place or not .... I see it was a multi admin effort; thanks to all who participated. NE Ent 22:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

---

So far, it seems that consensus is that the interaction ban is not enough, but an indef block is too strong. Lets meet in the middle then, as others have suggested as well. Almost all of Lucia's prior blocks and interaction bans stem from her problems in working under the scope of

. I propose that she be indefinitely topic banned by anything that falls under that Wikiprojects scope, broadly construed. It will be much more concretely defined than the IBAN (which would still be in place as well), but will still allow her to contribute to the project elsewhere. (She does a lot of work on video games, for instance.)

• Support - as nominator. 14:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The majority of Lucia's contributions are related to anime, and manga. So an effectively topic band on anime and manga related topics would effectively be an indefinite ban. The only problems she had with articles under the scope of
  WP:ANIME has been with Chris. So a solution that minimizes the negative impact on the contributions of both should be sought. 24.149.117.220 (talk
  ) 15:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

She is also heavily involved with

WP:SE. Sergecross73 msg me

15:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per the IP's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, an editor should not have to give up editing in a broad subject because of interaction issues over a small number of articles in that subject. bd2412 T 16:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Again I fail to see what Lucia is guilty of since her last block, so some editors came forward with what looks like something, that is bad faith right there with no concrete proof. I hope Lucia helps out on the Sailor Moon articles as she has made good edits to Wikipedia. One editor should not have to bring this all down. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:07, 27 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.

---

Created with same format to person articles, please check--Musamies (talk) 05:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:SPI? ES&L

11:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

All blocked along with four other accounts and pages deleted. I'm not sure who this is, but there are numerous related accounts stretching back to mid-November at least. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)