Note: the reference desk talk page cannot impose a topic ban. If there is a consensus here, a request will have to be made at WP:AN (not ANI) to see if there is a consensus among the administrators Community.

Straw Poll

Should Medeis / μηδείς be topic banned from deleting, collapsing, or otherwise editing any comment posted by any other user on any of the reference desks?

Medeis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Note: Because certain refdesk regulars have a strong tendency to WP:BLUDGEON and because this discussion may become heated, the straw poll section will be limited to one !vote per user, with no threaded replies allowed in the straw poll section. All users are free to make as many comments as they wish in the threaded discussion section. Any user may freely move any threaded reply posted in the straw poll section to the threaded discussion section. Please try to keep them in chronological order.

• Support As proposer. We have a large number of editors watching this page, and they can easily remove or collapse any material that needs it. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Macon's hypocrisy is showing, big time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:23, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - There are thread that do require removal ASAP and no evidence has been presented to convince me that Medeis should be prevented from doing that. MarnetteD|Talk 06:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Too many of her deletions are fundamentally flawed. She does not seem interested in discriminating between content in violation of guidelines, versus content she personally doesn't like. The fallout from her deletions is all too often significantly more disruptive than the allegedly-inappropriate, deleted content was. —Steve Summit (talk) 12:02, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - The desks need more regulars working together and respecting collaborative process and consensus, and less of what amounts to shoot-from-the-hip vigilantism. Years of attempts to reason with Medeis have produced little improvement that I can see. It's her way or the highway, and that never flies with me (never mind that it violates Wikipedia policy). While her policing actions are not all bad, they are a clear net-negative in my view. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Scientific inquiry has its own norms. The verbal imagery of diarrhea and food and licking are outside of those norms. Medeis can correct me if I am wrong but it is the lack of effort to make a question presentable that prompts one to remove the question. This is the question asked: "If you dip a cube of metal, plastic, glass or nonporous ceramic/rock in diarrhea infected with the hardest to rinse deadly germs, how long would you have to rinse it with a showerhead before the top becomes food-grade clean and you could lick it?" Any question (just about) can be spruced up to look respectable. There are questions based on that question that acknowledge the scientific underpinning of an area of discussion but the disregard for any effort at formulating a presentable question warrants that question's removal. Bus stop (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - She seems to decide to remove a Q because she doesn't like it, then, maybe she tries to find an excuse, and maybe she doesn't even bother. Absolutely unprofessional application of her own personal opinion of what belongs and what doesn't. -- StuRat (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

• Support For as long as I've been coming here, there have been issues with Medeis hatting and deleting questions and replies. Given the amount of effort that has gone into discussing her actions, it would seem that she, over the long course, is more disruptive than any of the content she is objecting to. Given the numerous issues, it is my opinion that deleting or hatting should be left to other members of the community. Phoenixia1177 (talk) 10:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose procedurally. A straw poll in a low-traffic area where one can easily gather friends to pursue grudges is about as kangaroo court-esque as one can get. Take it somewhere where more eyes with less bias can weigh in. TheValeyard (talk) 14:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Despite repeated pleas to follow our community guidelines (over several years), she has consistently closed threads whenever she wants, usually well against our consensus, and the process of reverting these simply builds ill will and negativity. We have plenty of people who do understand what needs to be removed, and do so. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per SemanticMantis above. Deor (talk) 16:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per SemanticMantis. SteveBaker (talk) 17:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Baseball Bugs. Six and 7 eighths (talk) 18:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per SemanticMantis. --Viennese Waltz 08:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per TheValeyard, neutral on the merits. Whether or not Medeis should or should not be proscribed from closing threads; this is not the venue to impose official sanction. Nothing here is binding, and unless and until something in a more formal forum happens, where uninvolved people can assess and contribute to the discussion, this is just the same old class of personalities, and a futile waste of time. --Jayron32 11:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose at the very least because this issue has come up before at AN/I and been rejected, therefore a repeat attempt should also take place at that high-volume noticeboard, and not here in this backwater (even with an AN - the lesser-volume of the two noticeboards - notice). Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per TheValeyard, Jayron, BMK. Not the appropriate venue. -- Begoon 01:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is not the place to propose or discuss a topic ban. The proposer really should have known that. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose It makes her happy. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:34, October 12, 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per TheValeyard and Beyond My Ken. This entire discussion is leaving a bad taste in my mouth. I am not sure if it violates any guidelines or policies, but my gut says it's inappropriate at the least. If someone has complaints about another editor this is not how you deal with it. I strongly suggest this entire discussion be closed and if someone thinks there are legitimate grounds for complaint then take it to the relevant noticeboard for a proper hearing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I understand the conflict but on balance her participation is a net positive. I just wish she'd reconsider the "strict constructionist" approach to wiki policy she mentioned a while back, given that 1) those policy documents like most everything else on Wikipedia are editible wiki pages that can be changed at any time; 2) NOTSTATUTE has been official policy since the beginning of the project (and from an originalist perspective it means exactly what it sounds like, not what revisionist wikilawyers have turned it into since then), 3) the same thing applies to WP:IAR. In other words, I wish Medeis would chill about that stuff. There's no need to be at the vanguard of wiki-bureaucracy at a place like RD. The other regulars aren't idiots, so if something doesn't bother them, then it's fine to leave it alone. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 05:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral - I have long thought that Medeis was doing harm by hatting or closing threads at the Reference Desk. However, a straw poll here is very much the wrong way to deal with her good-faith damage. As Guy Macon has pointed out previously, discussions of the conduct of other users on this Reference Desk talk page are not helpful. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded Discussion

This would in no way interfere with Medeis / μηδείς answering questions or paricipating in any way that does not involve editing other user's comments.

Again and again we have seen Medeis / μηδείς deleting, collapsing, or otherwise editing comments posted by other users, and again and again we have seen the community push back with reverts and complaints. There are several other editors who delete or collapse with pretty much zero pushback, because they do it in situations where everyone agrees in needed doing. Whether it is a competence issue purposeful, Medeis / μηδείς simply does not have the ability to judge what should and should not be removed. There are plenty of other editors here who will do the job and do it right. We don't need Medeis / μηδείς doing it poorly. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think that question about trying to live on an all-salmon diet is worth anything? And wasn't there a recent similar question about another type of food? What was done with that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please quote the exact policy or guideline that allows you or Medeis / μηδείς to delete things because you are of the opinion that they are of no value. I couldn't find one, but it would be convenient if I were allowed to delete anything you write that I don't believe to be "worth anything". --Guy Macon (talk) 06:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why should garbage questions be allowed to stay? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:39, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evasion noted. You have not cited any policy that supports your assertion. You are advocating violating Wikipedia guidelines and policies, specifically WP:TPOC. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one evading. Questions that call for speculation or debate are subject to deletion. Maybe you weren't aware of that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cite the policy or guideline that says that questions that call for speculation or debate are subject to deletion. Please keep WP:LOCALCON in mind when answering. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[EC] If you were thinking of citing WP:RD/G, don't bother. That page clearly says When removing or redacting someone else's posting, the usual talk page guidelines apply. The usual talk page guidelines include WP:TPOC. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've got to be kidding. Where have you been for the last 5 or more years? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:56, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evasion noted. I am through talking to you until you cite a policy or guideline that supports your assertions.. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines say that the ref desk is not for debate. And many other users have deleted questions that were obvious calls for speculation, debate, or just plain trolling. No wonder you're trying to get Betacommand reinstated - your sense of proportions is radically warped. But I guess I should expect no less from someone who once openly fantasized about murdering another user.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's worse than hyperbolic overreaction to a humorous cartoon? Repeated inane hyperbolic overreaction to that cartoon, still ongoing 2+1⁄2 years after the fact. Could you perhaps find some other mindless mud to sling? ―Mandruss ☎ 07:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One thing worse is trying to get the notorious user Betacommand reinstated, while at the same time trying to get a ref desk user banned for deleting garbage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evasion noted. My comment was about you and the first question was completely rhetorical. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What evasion? You asked, I answered. And maybe you think fantasizing about murdering someone is funny. Maybe you wouldn't think so if you were the target. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:33, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What evasion? You failed to respond to the criticism of you, instead deflecting the discussion to someone else's completely unrelated action. Whether you realize it or not, that's an evasion tactic. And you once again demonstrated your inability to hear what was said to you, simply restating the ridiculous premise that Guy Macon drew a cartoon because he was fantasizing about murdering you. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My response is that I've got it right and you've got it wrong. Is that clear enough? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To Mandruss; Alas, sometimes you get what you ask for. :) You asked "Could you perhaps find some other mindless mud to sling?" and indeed he did. Saying "One thing worse is trying to get the notorious user Betacommand reinstated, while at the same time trying to get a ref desk user banned for deleting garbage" is about as mindless as mudslinging gets. First, it contains at least three complete fabrications. [1] Topic banned is not the same as banned. Medeis / μηδείς has no need to delete what other editors write in order to continue participating on the reference desks. [2] On the Betacommand RfC I !voted "neutral", not "support". [3] An RfC asking Arbcom to make a decision that they promised to make four years ago, and which includes propositions like "keep the ban in place" and "lift the ban" is not trying to lift the ban. In fact, if Medeis / μηδείς gets topic banned and requests that the ban be lifted after a year has gone by I will strongly support lifting her ban per WP:ROPE.

The bigger problem here is that Bugs has completely ignored my request to cite any policy or guideline that supports his false claim that "questions that call for speculation or debate are subject to deletion". Instead he brings up multiple unrelated (and also false) accusations. He is being rude and disrespectful to the community by assuming that we will fall for such a transparent debating tactic. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And, Guy, he is not going to stop. Arguing with Bugs about this sort of thing is like feeding a troll, is like wrestling a pig in mud: all it does is get you covered in mud, and the pig enjoys it. So, please, take your own (repeated) advice and be done with it. (Which is logically equivalent do being done with it until Bugs cites the policy you keep asking him to, because he's obviously not going to do that, he's just going to keep evading.) —Steve Summit (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wise words indeed. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 19:39, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The next time someone else deletes a thread for being debate or speculation, are you going to yell at that user too? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This,[2] for example. Are you going to yell at that user too? Or do you only yell at users you don't like? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat—in response to this, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. The "rules are not the purpose of the community". Bear in mind that "[w]hile Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused." Bus stop (talk) 21:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and Medeis regularly misuses them to delete things she doesn't like. Or, at other times, her only rationale for deletion is "this doesn't need to be archived". StuRat (talk) 21:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And you're notorious for restoring threads initiated by banned users. Stop it! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[in response to StuRat's Support rationale mentioning unprofessionalism] And restoring threads initiated by banned users is likewise "unprofessional". (As a penalty, your pay here will be reduced by 25 percent.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:08, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Bus stop, you say "There are questions based on that question that acknowledge the scientific underpinning of an area of discussion but the disregard for any effort at formulating a presentable question warrants that question's removal", but I do not find that listed under the list of material that we are allowed to delete at WP:TPOC. I also don't find any support for such a removal at WP:RD/G, which says "Don't edit others' questions or answers" and "When removing or redacting someone else's posting, the usual talk page guidelines apply" Needless to say, WP:TPOC is part of the usual talk page guidelines. Can you cite any Wikipedia policy or guideline that supports your claim that "the disregard for any effort at formulating a presentable question warrants that question's removal"? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You just can't seem to let this go. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• When a question involves a real life circumstance it is understandable that objectionable details may be included, but when one is posing a hypothetical question it is the norm that a sort of "translation" into an approximation of scientific terminology is made. For instance a science question would not aim to be titillating or induce revulsion. Science is understood to hold objectivity in high regard. So a choice is usually made between relaying an actual circumstance and posing a question relating to it, or on the other hand formulating a question including the objective points that one deems necessary to inquire into some area that one is curious about. This, I think, is Medeis' motivation for removing the question. I could be wrong. That would depend on input that might be provided by Medeis, but let me call your attention to Nimur's response: "What a spectacularly scientific question..." Nimur knows a thing or two about science. I'm not so knowledgeable about science but I understand the language used in ordinary scientific conversation. The question as posed is smart-alecky and not geared toward productive responses as the question seems more like a prank. Bus stop (talk) 02:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But you don't dispute that no Wikipedia policy or guideline allows you to remove a question because it is smart-alecky and not geared toward productive responses, right? And you don't dispute that existing Wikipedia policies and guidelines expressly forbid such removals, right? (If I am wrong, please cite the policy that allows such removals). --Guy Macon (talk) 07:04, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I dispute your assertion that the question was objectionable (while noting that even if it was, deleting such questions is not allowed). People get diarrhea. They soil themselves. They clean up in a shower. They may even lose control of their bowels while taking the shower. It is reasonable to inquire if the normal action of a shower and warm soapy water is sufficient to disinfect the shower after that happens. A related question would be whether the normal action of a washing machine is sufficient to disinfect it as it cleans the soiled clothes. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say it's not allowed? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1) WP:TPO lists 5 good reasons to remove other users' comments. While it says they are merely "some examples", I've yet to see (in over 4 years of very active talk space participation in many venues) a case not in that list that was judged by the Wikipedia community to be a good reason to remove another user's comments. Can you cite one? Clearly the community views that as a comprehensive list and sets a high bar for removal. Removal of questions you find objectionable is not in the list.
2) That page says it applies to article talk pages and "other namespaces", and any claim that RD should live outside the standards applied to every other talk space in the project—because it doesn't say "article talk pages and other namespaces including the Reference Desks"—can be nothing but bad-faith wikilawyering.
3) In my view, one can reasonably argue that RD has special requirements and needs some special rules. These should be viewed as local amendments to WP:TPG, not replacements for it. Where is the special rule, supported by community consensus, that says an editor can remove questions that they find objectionable?
4) Given your hearing disability I fully expect that your response to all of this will be: "Where does it say it's not allowed?" ―Mandruss ☎ 13:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're funny. Now tell me where the Nazi troll's posts fit into the scheme. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TPO bullet 3, perhaps? Have you read much of TPG? ―Mandruss ☎ 13:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And there you have the answer to Macon's continual question. "Harmful posts" are allowed to be deleted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Using that logic, then, you won't object to my removal of about 90% of your comments on this page because I feel they are unconstructive and therefore "harmful" to the operation of the desks? ―Mandruss ☎ 14:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And likewise yours. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, no doubt, which is not the point. The point is that there is very significant good-faith objection to that application of TPO bullet 3, from multiple very experienced editors, and that means You. Need. Consensus. To. Do. It. That's how Wikipedia works. You do not have that consensus, nor does Medeis, nor does anybody else. That bullet 3 does not grant anybody license to remove anything they feel is harmful, which is why I have not removed your posts. I understand and respect TPG. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So whenever the Nazi troll posts his garbage, insteading "wp:deny"-ing it, it should be brought here for discussion??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Macon—may I call your attention to Nimur's response to the question posed by Sagittarian? Surely you can concede that there may be reason for Medeis to act as she did. Or do you think that the Ayatollah Khomeini is relevant to sterilization (microbiology)? Bus stop (talk) 13:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing in Nimur's response that supports violating any Wikipedia policy or guideline. Again, please cite the policy that allows you to remove a post because it isn't relevant to sterilization (microbiology). Please stop adding on examples of things that you think are bad and should be removed. We get it. You want to remove things for reasons that are not allowed as reasons for removal. We don't care what those reasons are. I am not going to discuss every post that you don't like in detail. I am simply going to tell you that (shouting) YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO REMOVE POSTS THAT YOU DO NOT LIKE!!!. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Macon—Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Please see WP:BURO. Please maintain an open mind and engage in conversation rather than, or in addition to, demanding to see in writing where something is permitted. I'm going to ask you again to shed some light on your understanding of Nimur's response. Bear in mind that Nimur is well-versed in the area of science and is well-respected on these Reference desks. Do you think Nimur used the Science Reference desk as it should be used? Did his response vary in any way from the normal or expected use of the Science Reference desk? Does Nimur generally ridicule questions asked on the Science Reference desk? We are talking here about community standards. I contend that community standards are reflected in Nimur's response to the question posed by Sagittarian. Bus stop (talk) 15:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about standards, it's about not liking certain individuals. If it were Medeis instead of Nimur, Macon would be screaming about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop, I am going to stop responding to you now. Go ahead and hold your opinion that we are free to violate WP:TPOC. Go ahead and hold your opinion that Nimur criticizing a question is a valid reason for deleting it. You are free to have your opinions. I would strongly advise not acting on those opinions by deleting any comments that meet your criteria, because editors who do that tend to be blocked. Feel free to have the last word. I am done. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First you're not responding to me, and now responding to another user. Keep up that childish trend, and with any luck we'll never have to hear your hypocrisies again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The Actual Question is, do we give legal advice "is it legal to burn off fluff" or medical advice "when is it okay to lick diarrhea covered objects" against our own guidelines? Certain people seem to think there are simply NO GUIDELINES. If you want to address this, then lets ask, is any editor able to hat or remove questions the guidelines and other policies (like re banned users)? I will abide by any rule that applies to all alike.

I don't edit war, I don't edit based on POV or "what I like", I don't curse people out "Bullshit!". So if you've got a case with diffs bring it to arbcom, and the GIF of Guy Macon's sniper assassination of User:Baseball Bugs retooled to take me out will certainly make a strong argument for his case. The simple fact is, I edit here a lot, and do a lot of cleanup, and the people who enjoy the it's a forum where anything goes atmosphere don't like it. But all the standing rules still apply. μηδείς (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the question. We could concede that the questions are against guidelines. That doesn't necessarily then follow that every possible response to that violation of guidelines is then OK. The logic of your response here doesn't hold up. Merely because action A is not allowed doesn't mean that every possible response to action A is fine. In simpler terms, not every punishment is justified for every offense, and the discussion over whether the response to violation is proportional and justified is perfectly legitimate. Defending your response by claiming the thing you were responding to was itself wrong is not an actual defense of your actions. I'm still not saying I think what you did was wrong, but your defense of your actions here is a non-defense, and has no bearing on deciding whether or not your response was justified. --Jayron32 11:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This whole thing really has nothing to do with rules or guidelines. It has to do with Macon bearing a personal grudge against you, even as he initiated a process to try to get the infamous Betacommand reinstated.[3] Macon should ban himself from Wikipedia for a year or two, and reflect on what his real priorities are. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis / μηδείς, several editors have told you that you lack the judgement to determine what is and is not a request for medical advice. Your most recent deletion is a case in point. Asking a question about whether a surface is clean enough to eat off of is not a request for medical advice. You need to be stopped from deleting other people's contributions and leave the decision on what to delete in the hands of editor who are competent. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You lack the judgment to determine when a question is trolling. You need to worry about your own lack of competence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• At the top it says that "If there is a consensus here, a request will have to be made at WP:AN". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Well aware, but it should start there. Not in some dusty Star Chamber. TheValeyard (talk) 17:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive875#Medeis hatting and deletions on the ref desks
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive956#Problematic behavior by User:Medeis at the reference desk
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive910#User:Medeis has some sort of vendetta against me on the Reference Desk: Science board, and keeps harassing me
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive825#Community sanctions: The Rambling Man, Baseball Bugs, and Medeis
• Block Log

--Guy Macon (talk)

• Discussions, sure, but where's the consensus? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The notion that there's "consensus" against Medeis' strict interpretation of the guidelines is a fiction. There has never been any such consensus. That's why this same debate occurs every few months. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not "support". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Reply to !vote by Jayron32.) I see nothing inherently wrong with taking a group's temperature on any issue, in a completely non-binding way. But the point is moot at this stage because the temperature has already been taken. I think we've heard from most people who have enough familiarity with the history to have an informed opinion, and care to voice it. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The point I was making Mandruss is we know the temperature. Discussions here bring in the SAME people with the SAME entrenched opinions because we've all been working together for YEARS. After a decade, we know all the beats. For that reason, it is rarely useful to ask here questions like this. Everyone behaves predictably, and we all know what's going to happen. The only useful way to handle these issues is to seek outside, independent, review. Otherwise, it's just the same-old same old. I know what you are trying to do. My objection isn't that I don't think it's useful if only because we know exactly who is going to say what already. --Jayron32 20:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you knew how all those people felt. I didn't. Anyway it's done and we can't unring that bell. It was intended as a simple straw poll, nothing more, and I failed to see the need for a separate Discussion section. I don't see why we couldn't close this thread as nothing constructive left to do here. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or better yet, delete the whole bloody thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've learned nothing about removal policy and practice in the past few days. Why am I not surprised. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then don't box it up either. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've boxed something up for years: You've never seemed like the real Bugs Bunny to me. On the bright side, I take you seriously as a baseball fan. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:03, October 12, 2017 (UTC)

In old-fashioned terminology, a baseball bug is a fan of the game. Or to put it in adjective form, a fan of the game could be said to be "baseball bugs". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a bit better, then. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:30, October 13, 2017 (UTC)

Jayron has it right. This is nothing more than the recurring argument over what stuff can be deleted, i.e. what stuff is "Harmful". The Opposes here could be said to be using a broad interpretation of what could be "harmful", erring on the side of caution; and the Supports could be said to agree on deletion only when it is widely considered to be "harmful", such as the standard ref desk troll's posts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Six and 7 eighths—I have a question for you. You voted "Support per Baseball Bugs." Can you tell me why you are supporting per Baseball Bugs? That would seem to me to be a contradiction because Baseball Bugs' view on the question under consideration here is "Oppose". Can you explain what I am perceiving as a contradiction in terms? Guy Macon has offered a possible explanation on Ad Orientem's Talk page saying that "the obvious interpretation of the comment is 'I found Baseball Bugs' arguments to be so bad that I !voted the other way'". Is that the correct interpretation? I was wondering if you could clear this up. Bus stop (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cap-sized user was a drive-by created specifically to make that sarcastic remark. Very unlikely to re-emerge here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bugs, the fact that this comes up over and over again is a SIGN THAT THE BEHAVIOR IS OFF, not a sign that some meanies have it out to get medeis. If you kept stubbing your toe on the same chair over and over again, would you conclude that the chair is out to get you? Or would you maybe consider the fact that the chair should be moved. Food for thought. Oh well. It is silly to !vote "oppose" when you are opposing the act of !voting (as opposed to opposing the proposed topic ban), but the comments about how arguing here are a non-binding waste of time are on point. Anyone who's still reading, feel free to ping me you notice this ban being taken up in a formal venue. (And for the record, medeis, I like you. I think you have interesting perspective and often post good references. I also think ~95% of your removals/hats are incorrect, and I think that you should not do that. I have told you this many times before, and seen no change. As I explained above, that is why I support this topic ban, because I don't think anything else will work. Feel free to prove me wrong ;)SemanticMantis (talk) 19:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It being "a non-binding waste of time" hasn't stopped Macon from linking this discussion from WP:AN and issuing personal attacks in the process. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hear that deafening silence? That's the sound of nobody supporting you in your claims against Guy Macon. His style is a bit different from mine, but his criticisms are for the most part spot on, and your claims of persecution are highly overblown. You are WAY past WP:STICK on this. Take it to ANI or not as you wish, but please stop polluting this page with your incessant whining. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is his style "a bit different from" yours, Mandruss? Can you tell me what you are referring to? Bus stop (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just say he lets Bugs get under his skin more than I do, and leave it at that. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying that Bugs bugs him? Or are you saying that insects can be burrowing dermatologically? Bus stop (talk) 20:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least four editors he's refusing to talk to now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• At the top it says that "If there is a consensus here, a request will have to be made at WP:AN". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, and it specifies AN and not ANI, where AN is the noticeboard where fewer non-admins participate; it also says that admins will decide on a topic ban -- no. The community will decide, and admins will implement it. In any case, this "straw poll" seems like a waste of time, since presumably the same people will make the same arguments and register the same !votes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I did notice that it said that admins (instead of the community), but I chalked that up to an honest mistake. In any case, my point was that nothing would be decided here, but would would be made at another venue. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • To add to my previous response, you said "this is not the venue to impose official sanction.". Unless I missed it, nobody said that this the venue to impose official sanction. In fact, the exact opposite was stated. I have to admit that it's a little odd to see an additional layer of bureaucracy as being construed as making it easier. Perhaps I am missing something? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• @Ad Orientem: I suggested a close over 5 hours ago. The straw poll is effectively finished, and leaving it open, with helpful "eyes needed" notices at both AN and ANI, accomplishes nothing but a lot of ado about nothing. I don't know how many people need to suggest a close before somebody closes it. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eleven. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:51, October 12, 2017 (UTC)

I concur. Unfortunately I am now INVOLVED. So yea... -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:59, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Issues appropriate for this page include general announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals, block reviews, and backlog notices." -- WP:AN --Guy Macon (talk) 06:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment While well intended, I don't think Guy Macon's approach here is helpful, marching in here telling the rest of us what to do, and expecting slavish attention to wiki policy to impress anyone who's not already taken up such a devotion. We're all good editors here, experienced enough to successfully edit by best practices directly most of the time, without caring what the policy documents say or considering them important. So IMO real progress on this question can best be made by addressing the issues on their own terms, rather than through the distorting lens/bludgeon of wiki policy. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 06:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, can you say where or how Guy told the rest of us what to do, explicitly or otherwise? The participation was completely voluntary as far as I can see. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a good question. There are at least a few. One is in starting this thing in the first place. Another is dictating how responses are to be made (along with a general attack against anyone who dares to stand up to him). Yet another is the childish "I'm not talking to you" stuff. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Your day of reckoning will come, Bugs. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• What, are you channeling Steve Bannon now? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• [To Robert McClenon] Are you talking about this?[4] Where Macon said we should bring these kinds of issues to ANI and not to the ref desk talk page? He seems to have forgotten his own "rule" which he laid down this past spring. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Discussions of breasts brings out the irrationality in all of us. Bus stop (talk) 17:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, and other times also. In the past it was common to have discussions of the conduct of other editors on this Reference Desk talk page, and User:Guy Macon would (in my opinion, wisely) advise either to ignore editor conduct, or to take it up with the editor, or to take it to WP:ANI. That seems to have changed, maybe because his block log is now twice as long as mine, or something like that. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• In the case of Medeis / μηδείς there have been multiple attempts to get ANI to deal with the situation, only leading to inaction and more complaints later. My theory is that posting a straw poll and then a report at AN will lead to a firm decisions one way or the other. So I am actually taking my own advice and taking this to AN. This is the first step, necessitated by prior ANI inaction.

I believe that ANI has been ineffective because [A] the complaints are often from those who had their comments deleted, and frankly most of the are not very nice people (which doesn't make their comments any less protected by WP:TPOC) and who present their arguments poorly, and [B] The very nature of ANI (Note the "I" in the name) is to only look at one incident. AN is where a pattern of behavior should be reported.

Confusing the issue a bit is the fact that there are two distinct classes of Oppose !votes. Some say that Medeis / μηδείς should be free to delete other editor's comments. Some say that they object to the straw poll and think that this should go to ANI (which is the wrong place) or AN.

And, of course, there is the issue of WP:BLUDGEONING. One editor insulted me until I stopped responding, and since then has posted dozens of comments, all talking about me. He has even been following me around and posting comments about me on unrelated pages where he has never posted before. I am going to continue not responding, but eventually this situation may require administrator intervention. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just one? There are at least FOUR editors that you're "done talking to". What they have in common is daring to stand up to your tactics. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]