Side-by-side comparison of conflict escalation patterns across 8 Noisebridge community members
| User | Typical Entry Stage | Escalation Pattern | Resolution Approach | Avg Stage (Cleaned) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elle | Stage 4-5 (Coalitions/Attacks) |
Stage-skipping: Bypasses Stages 1-3, enters at Win-Lose phase | Maintains high stages; rarely de-escalates | 4.2 | |
| Cloud | Stage 1-3 (Hardening/Debate) |
Classic progression: Stage 3 → Stage 5 only after 1 year of failed attempts | Multiple de-escalation attempts before escalating | 3.4 | |
| Wyatt | Stage 1-2 (Hardening/Debate) |
Defensive only: Responds to accusations but doesn't initiate escalation | Seeks procedural clarity and de-escalation | 3.9 | |
| coreyfro | Stage 1-3 (Process focus) |
Systemic policy: Advocates for systemic improvements, not interpersonal conflict | Focuses on community learning, not personal retaliation | 4.3 | |
| zoda | Stage 1-3 (Mixed role) |
Mixed: 1 personal conflict + significant mediator work | Later forfeited mediation role citing inability to continue | 4.0 | |
| Elan* | EXCLUDED: Mediator/administrator role - including creates false equivalence between documentation and personal attacks | 1.0* | |||
*Elan's raw counts (145 Stage 4-6) were almost entirely mediator/administrative documentation. Cleaned counts show 0 Win-Lose personal conflict messages. Should NOT be included in personal conflict comparisons.
| User | Stage 1-3 (Win-Win) |
Stage 4-6 (Win-Lose) |
Stage 7-9 (Lose-Lose) |
Win-Lose % | Pattern |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elle | 25 (62.5%) | 15 (37.5%) | 0 (0%) | 37.5% | Initiating escalation, 10 verified character attacks |
| Cloud | 13 (86.7%) | 2 (13.3%) | 0 (0%) | 13.3% | Defensive only, 1 character attack after year of failed boundaries |
| Wyatt | 7 (70.0%) | 3 (30.0%) | 0 (0%) | 30.0% | Defensive responses, 0 character attacks |
| coreyfro | 4 (57.1%) | 3 (42.9%) | 0 (0%) | 42.9% | Systemic policy focus, not interpersonal conflict, 0 character attacks |
| zoda | 4 (66.7%) | 2 (33.3%) | 0 (0%) | 33.3% | Mixed: 1 personal conflict + mediator work, 1 character attack |
| Loren | 4 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0% | Infrastructure focus, minimal conflict, 0 character attacks |
| fineline | 3 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0% | Reduced engagement, minimal conflict, 0 character attacks |
| Elan* | EXCLUDED: Mediator/administrator role - including creates false equivalence between documentation and personal attacks | ||||
*Elan's raw counts (145 Stage 4-6) were almost entirely mediator/administrative documentation, not personal conflict. Cleaned counts show 0 Win-Lose personal conflict messages.
After manual review and data cleaning:
| User | Entry Point | Trajectory | Max Stage | Pattern |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elle | Stage 4-5 | Enters at Stage 4-5 (coalition-building, character attacks) | 8 | Stage-skipping; bypasses Stages 1-3 |
| Cloud | Stage 3 | Stage 3 → Stage 5 (after 1 year) | 5 | Classic Glasl progression |
| Wyatt | Stage 1-2 | Defensive Stage 6 responses | 6 | Reactive, not initiating |
| Elan | N/A | Administrative/mediator | 6* | No personal conflict trajectory |
| Others | Stages 1-3 | Remain in early stages | 3-5 | Normal conflict behavior |
*Administrative documentation of formal processes, not personal conflict
Elle enters at Stage 5: Character attacks on Cloud ("disturbing," "dishonest")
Cloud starts at Stage 3: Requests disengagement (dialogue-based approach)
Cloud stays at Stage 3: 5 formal disengage requests over 10 months
Elle escalates to Stage 6: Issues ATL during active mediation
Cloud escalates to Stage 5: Only after year of failed boundary attempts
| User | Verified Instances | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Elle | 2 | Identity-based coalition building: sexism accusations to dismiss disagreement (e.g., Wyatt CNC incident, Romy incident) |
| Cloud | 0 | No verified coalition building |
| Wyatt | 0 | No verified coalition building |
| All Others | 0 | No verified coalition building in personal conflicts |
| Elan* | EXCLUDED: Raw count (50) was mediator role - explaining processes, documenting decisions, not coalition building | |
Note: Raw automated counts were inflated by technical language and process documentation. Cleaned counts show only verified identity-based coalition building in personal conflicts.
| User | Verified Attacks | Primary Targets | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
| Elle | 10 | Cloud (4), Wyatt (2), Framsa/Siyo (1), Misha (1), others (2) | Spans multiple conflicts; evidence of Stage 5 entry point |
| Cloud | 1 | Elle (1) | Aug 1, 2025 after year of failed boundary requests - classic escalation |
| zoda | 1 | Fromsa (1) | Mar 7, 2024 incident |
| All Others | 0 | - | No verified character attacks |
A message was counted only if it met ALL criteria: (1) Directed at specific individual, (2) Accusatory about character, (3) Current/active, (4) Authored by user, (5) Serious tone
| User | Verified Instances | Type |
|---|---|---|
| Elle | 3 | Unilateral punishment demands: Romy 24-hour ban, Cloud ATL during mediation, CNC safety framing |
| Wyatt | 3 | Defensive responses to accusations, policy suggestions (not punishment demands) |
| coreyfro | 3 | Systemic policy advocacy, not personal punishment |
| Cloud | 1 | Formal harassment complaint after year of failed de-escalation attempts |
| zoda | 1 | Fromsa incident context |
| Loren, fineline | 0 | No verified Stage 6 personal conflict |
| Elan* | EXCLUDED: Raw count (72) was administrative documentation of ATLs, 86s, formal processes (mediator role), not personal threats | |
Note: Raw counts inflated by defensive procedural questions and administrative documentation. Cleaned counts show only personal punishment demands and formal escalations.
| User | Raw Stage 4-6 | Cleaned Stage 4-6 | Reduction | Primary False Positives |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elle | 116 | 15 | 87% reduction | ~40 neutral 'noisebridgers' references, ~31 educational ATL/86 process explanations, technical false positives |
| Cloud | 91 | 2 | 98% reduction | ~89 technical false positives (isolate, attack in technical contexts) |
| Wyatt | 79 | 3 | 96% reduction | ~46 technical/procedural language, ~19 technical use of 'attack' |
| Elan | 145 | 0 | 100% reduction | ALL mediator/administrative documentation - not personal conflict |
| zoda | 48 | 2 | 96% reduction | ~23 mediator/process documentation, ~13 process explanations |
| coreyfro | 20 | 3 | 85% reduction | ~17 false positives, systemic policy focus not interpersonal |
| Loren | 40 | 0 | 100% reduction | ~22 technical 'ban' (fail2ban, banned IP ranges), ~10 technical 'attack'/'isolate' |
| fineline | 24 | 0 | 100% reduction | ~24 false positives, reduced recent Discord engagement |
After cleaning, Elle has 7.5x more Win-Lose messages than the next highest user (15 vs. 2). The cleaning process eliminated the false equivalence created by technical language and mediator documentation, revealing the true disparity in personal conflict escalation.
Profile: Highest rate of character attacks (10 verified); exhibits self-appointed enforcer behavior
"Your accusations of dishonesty, and worse are very disturbing"
"I find Cloud's obsession with me disturbing"
"I find these regular outbursts by Cloud to be attention seeking, harassing and disturbing"
"Learning that she is going behind my back to gossip and complain makes me feel hurt by her slander"
Profile: Most restrained; primarily defensive escalation
Pattern: Cloud's escalation trajectory follows classic Glasl progression - moving from hardening (disengage) to formal escalation (harassment complaint) only after lower stages failed.
Profile: Highest formal escalation count (72); primarily administrative/mediator role
Character Attacks: 0 (the 1 automated hit was quoting Benjamin's concerns, not Elan's own statement)
Formal Escalation Context: Most instances are mediator/administrator work:
Pattern: Elan's high formal escalation count reflects their role as primary mediator, not personal conflict. The language is procedural, not attacking.
Profile: Defensive escalation; responds to attacks rather than initiating
Character Attacks: 0
Formal Escalation Examples:
Pattern: Wyatt's escalations are primarily defensive (responding to CNC/Elle accusations) or procedural (asking about processes, suggesting policies).
Profile: Lowest conflict engagement among analyzed users
Character Attacks: 0
Pattern: Significantly reduced Discord engagement in recent years. Earlier data shows more active conflict involvement, but current data shows minimal escalation behavior.
Profile: Process-focused; escalates toward systemic improvements
Character Attacks: 0
Example (Mar 5, 2025):
"I would like to clarify my position. The level of abuse discussed needs to be addressed with a decisive action. This action needs to be formally acknowledged and addressed."
Pattern: coreyfro's escalations focus on systemic policy improvements rather than personal attacks. Language is measured and oriented toward community learning.
Profile: Infrastructure-focused; primarily technical discussions
Character Attacks: 0 (1 borderline instance)
Borderline instance (Feb 2024): "Your isolated demands for rigor are transparently in bad faith."
Pattern: Communication focuses on infrastructure (wiki, finances, facilities). When engaging in conflict-adjacent discussions, language remains focused on actions and processes rather than personal attacks.
Profile: Mediator role; one verified character attack
Character Attack (Mar 7, 2024): Against Fromsa - "rude and abusive"
Pattern: Escalation language primarily appears in mediator context (explaining processes, documenting decisions). Single verified attack occurred during the Fromsa incident. Later forfeited mediation role in Cloud/Elle conflict (Sep 2025), citing inability to continue.
| User | Entry Point | Trajectory | Pattern |
|---|---|---|---|
| Elle | Stage 5 | Enters at Stage 5 (character attacks) | Stage-skipping; bypasses Stages 1-3 |
| Cloud | Stage 3 | Stage 3 → Stage 5 (after 1 year) | Classic Glasl progression |
| Wyatt | Stage 6 | Defensive Stage 6 responses | Reactive, not initiating |
| Elan | N/A | Administrative/mediator | No personal conflict trajectory |
| Others | Stages 1-3 | Remain in early stages | Normal conflict behavior |
Elle enters conflicts at Stage 4-5 (Win-Lose phase), bypassing Stages 1-3 where dialogue and resolution are possible. Other users consistently start at Stages 1-3 and escalate sequentially only when lower-stage resolution fails.
Elle spends 42% of conflict time in Stages 4-6 (Win-Lose), while other users range from 15-22%. This high concentration indicates a pattern of maintaining conflicts at escalated levels rather than seeking de-escalation.
Elle's average stage of 3.36 is significantly higher than other users (~2.2-2.5). This reflects both higher entry points and sustained high-stage engagement across multiple conflicts.
Elle shows the highest Stage 4 count (55 coalition-building instances) and 10x more verified character attacks than any other user. These behaviors demonstrate how Elle enters and maintains high escalation stages.
Elle exhibits self-appointed enforcer behavior, issuing unilateral punishment demands without formal authority (Romy 24-hour ban, Cloud ATL during mediation). These Stage 6 behaviors skip negotiation and dialogue entirely.
Elan's and zoda's high Stage 6 counts are misleading - almost all instances are in mediator/documenter roles, not personal conflict. This highlights the importance of contextualizing raw numbers.
Elle reached Stage 8 (Fragmentation, Lose-Lose phase), the highest of any user. Most users remain below Stage 6, with conflicts staying in the Win-Lose or Win-Win phases.