Ivanvector (talk | contribs) Reverted good faith edits by Tryptofish (talk): All of that content was removed *by MPants* prior to all the oversighting. The removal is one of the oversighted edits. (TW) Tag: Undo |
Tryptofish (talk | contribs) Undid good faith revision 884465173 by Ivanvector (talk) You may re-revert me, and I promise not to make any more reverts, so please don't overreact. But he removed it in a moment of anger and there is nothing oversightable there. Tag: Undo |
||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
*Yes, for the record, all {{tl|OversightBlock}}s are subject to immediate review by the entire oversight team once they have been made. After changing Ivanvector’s block to an OS block, I immediately emailed the list for review. The content Roxy is discussing was not suppressed, but another OS’r felt it best to remove from the live page. I can’t really say anything else at this time. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 18:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC) |
*Yes, for the record, all {{tl|OversightBlock}}s are subject to immediate review by the entire oversight team once they have been made. After changing Ivanvector’s block to an OS block, I immediately emailed the list for review. The content Roxy is discussing was not suppressed, but another OS’r felt it best to remove from the live page. I can’t really say anything else at this time. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 18:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC) |
||
*Since we're doing this, let me just clarify that ''my'' blanking of the text was not intended an oversight action — indeed, it was not oversighted — but rather for the reason I stated in my edit summary. Even ignoring the content, what remained was a screed-like abuse of the talkpage while blocked, and such disruptions are routinely blanked, in particular for indefinite blocks. ~ <span style="color:#DF00A0">Amory</span><small style="color:#555"> ''([[User:Amorymeltzer|u]] • [[User talk:Amorymeltzer|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Amorymeltzer|c]])''</small> 19:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC) |
*Since we're doing this, let me just clarify that ''my'' blanking of the text was not intended an oversight action — indeed, it was not oversighted — but rather for the reason I stated in my edit summary. Even ignoring the content, what remained was a screed-like abuse of the talkpage while blocked, and such disruptions are routinely blanked, in particular for indefinite blocks. ~ <span style="color:#DF00A0">Amory</span><small style="color:#555"> ''([[User:Amorymeltzer|u]] • [[User talk:Amorymeltzer|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Amorymeltzer|c]])''</small> 19:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC) |
||
==Note 2== |
|||
I want to be entirely respectful to the decisions related to the oversight determination, as well as to what I see as a legitimate administrative decision to remove old (expired or superseded) block notices and MPants' replies to them, as well as everything between the time of the oversighted remark and what administrators and oversighters have currently left on the page. I'm not looking to interfere with any of that. But there were a large number of perfectly reasonable comments by editors who left advice or information for MPants, and I see no reason to hide any of that from him, so I am '''selectively''' restoring ''that''. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 20:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== February 2019 == |
|||
I am usually on your side, I personally like you, and I also have a low opinion of the behavior of some of the editors you were dealing with, but "fuck your shitty, condescending bullshit sideways with a sandpaper dildo and hot sauce as lube"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MjolnirPants&diff=884143661&oldid=884142800] really did deserve a block in the range of one day to one week. Wait out your block and then dial back on the personal attacks. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 06:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:By far the best way to deal with trolls is to deny them the attention that they seek. Responding with dildos wrapped with sandpaper and drenched in hot sauce is the exact and precise opposite of the correct way to respond to trolls. The fact that I am responding to you shows that I do not believe that you are an irredeemable troll, but rather an editor who needs to change their behavior, and I sincerely hope that you will do so. [[User:Cullen328|<b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328</sup>]] [[User talk:Cullen328|<span style="color:#00F">''Let's discuss it''</span>]] 06:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::{{re|Cullen328}} I have no comment on whether you were right to block MPants or whether he should be promptly unblocked, but {{tq|''you are very quick to accuse those who criticize your behavior of being politically biased against you''}} is apparently baseless, and you should retract it. MPants is telling the truth that he is very slow to bring politics into disputes (sometimes frustratingly so -- I've seen him refuse throughout thousands of bytes of talk page back and forth to point out the political elephant in the room). [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 11:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
I like you, Pants, but in this scenario the best option would be to say "Alright, I got annoyed and snapped and now I am chilled. I'll try to be more polite, but seriously we need more admin eyes on this disruption". That would probably have got you an unblock. As it is, 31 hours is not a long time and the block will be over soon enough. [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 14:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:<small>Apparently Sinebot thinks we should have a date. Okay, I'm game, I know a bar that serves [[Curious Brewery|nice beer]], who'll get the round in, though? [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 14:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)</small> |
|||
*<small>(mentioned but not pinged)</small> Cullen328's note about my close I think missed the background leading up to my commentary in which several editors just really wanted that thread to be put to rest. For what it's worth it was not intended to be a civility parole, but the general theme of the discussion was that your aggressive outbursts were out of line. I wrote [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=865832552 this] at the time as a warning about making more violent threats; I don't think this latest incident was one, but ''please'' do better. |
|||
:And regarding your enormous red edit notice warning: have you considered that if many people are coming here to complain about your behaviour, enough to necessitate an enormous red preemptive warning, maybe it's your behaviour that's the problem? [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 14:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
*MPants, my friend (and I really ''do'' mean my friend), I feel like I owe you an apology. I said, and I was speaking the truth as of that time, that I found your edit summary very funny and enjoyed it. That was a few minutes before the ANI thread opened. A day later, I feel badly about my own comment because I feel like I encouraged you to say things that I should not have encouraged. I'm generally a strong advocate for civility, and I'm feeling a little like a hypocrite today. Going forward, please avoid handing those kinds of things to the not-here trouble-makers. I say "handing" because I mean that it gives them an excuse to turn things around and make the dispute ''appear'' to be your fault. I'm unhappy with the way that this ended up. What I wish had happened was that the obvious sock had opened a complaint without anything they could really point to, and got the boomerang that they got, without anything more having happened. But you had given them something they could point to, even though they certainly had it coming. For neurotypicals, just seeing "dirty words" can be a trigger to think: "yes, that was incivil" – whereas a lot of passive-aggressive but superficially polite garbage does not trigger them in the same way. And I guess we have, and indeed should have, the same rules for neurotypicals and for those who are not. As a purely practical matter, superficial politeness, when the target does not in any way deserve it, is a useful tool in avoiding trouble from the powers-that-be. Take a look at my user talk, and note how many times I reply to editors by saying first: "Thank you for asking me that here." More than half the time, I'm actually thinking "fuck you". I'm therefore being just a little bit dishonest, hypocritical again, but it is extremely useful in keeping things moving along without a further blow-up. That's my sincere feedback, and I hope that you do not find it condescending. And I'm very concerned that, having come just after your return from your break, the block will make you feel embittered. Please don't let it discourage you. Many of us are eager to see you back! And to the various admins opining here, it would have been helpful to have had a bit of commentary about your perspectives at the ANI thread ''before'' this block was issued. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 23:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion == |
|||
[[File:Peacedove.svg|60px|left]] |
|||
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard]] regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. |
|||
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!<!--Template:DRN-notice--> [[User:Autonova|Autonova]] ([[User talk:Autonova|talk]]) 09:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Hey MPants == |
|||
I thought about you this morning, even before I discovered you were blocked, when I read a Facebook post by [[Omar Suleiman (imam)]]. I don't go in for religious stuff, but the man is wise all the same. [https://www.facebook.com/imamomarsuleiman/posts/2281056058581089 Here's his post:]. You might also consider reading the simple rules for daily editing at [[Wikipedia:Old-Fashioned Wikipedian Values]]. Cheers, — [[User:Diannaa|Diannaa]] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> ([[User talk:Diannaa|talk]]) 15:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== February 2019 take 2 == |
|||
:MJP, I have blocked your for your sweary unlock request[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MjolnirPants&diff=884199924&oldid=884198227] in response to your previous block, which amounted to a personal attack on the blocking editor. |
|||
:There is a clear consensus at ANI that this sweary personal attack stuff has to stop. Your use of a sweary personal attack as a request to lift a block for a sweary personal attack shows that the problem has not been resolved. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 12:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::Hang on - Pants' last block only expired, what, two hours ago and he hasn't edited since. How do you know he hasn't calmed down and taken my advice to sit the block out? You don't. As the block notice always says : "{{xt|Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.}}" You can't just swoop in and smack the banhammer on him without giving him a chance to improve first! Can I get a show of hands for an unblock, please? [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 12:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::Wow, way to escalate! Add my hand to the unblock showing. [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 12:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::[[Special:Diff/884405922|Me also]]. [[User:Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:black">'''——'''</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:black">''SerialNumber''</span>]][[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:#8B0000">54129</span>]] 12:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::{{ec|2}} {{u|BrownHairedGirl}}, I tried to stay out of this mess, but this block is absolutely ridiculous. Is it not expected to have someone who is blocked vent out their frustrations? There have been multiple administrators who have shown up on this page and not blocked him; rather, they worked at deescalating the situation. You decide to come in and unnecessarily escalate it. What purpose does this block serve except to reignite the flames that just started to die down? You should reverse this block immediately. [[User:Nihlus|<span style="padding:2px 2px;font-variant:small-caps;color:#000;letter-spacing:-0.5px">'''Nihlus'''</span>]] 12:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{ec}} I have serious questions about whether it is constructive (let alone policy compliant) to automatically reblock editors who react negatively to being blocked "out of the blue" as happened above. I can't possibly imagine any of the editors who don't like MPants reacting much better. Or most other long term editors for that matter. This whole affair is looking more and more like people just want MPants blocked, which seems '''really''' inappropriate given that he's a constructive member of the community who recently returned from a retirement that came about because he felt harassed. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 12:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::Whatever about his other editing, the sweary personal attack stuff is ''not'' constructive; it is corrosive and destructive. Constructive work elsewhere does not give any editor a licence to engage in [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] conduct. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 12:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I agree with that, but we have a pretty long-standing tradition that we allow blocked editors to blow off a bit of steam in an unblock request, especially if it happens during a stressful drama situation. I've seen blocks extended when attacking responses are extreme, but I really don't see that's the case here - I think it's usually more appropriate to revoke TPA for the duration of a block if the response is excessively bad. But I don't think I've ever seen a blocked editor left to sit out a block until it expires, and then get another block as a response to their unblock request. If an escalation in response to a bad unblock request is needed, it should be done at the time. [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 12:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Like a game of chess, you need to think a couple of moves ahead. Even if you are certain a block is absolutely the right thing to do and can confidently back it up with policy, it is always a good idea to go straight to ANI and say what you have done and why, appreciate the block may be controversial, and be willing to listen to objections, and sign off with "if any administrator has a good reason to disagree with the block, please reverse it without waiting for my permission". Anything you can do to prove to the community that ''it's nothing personal''. [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive303#Winkelvi|Worked example here]]. I appreciate you did post on ANI, but you only posted your opinions, not that you'd blocked. You certainly can't mute the [[WP:FANCLUB|fan club]] that turns up objecting to the block, so you need to accommodate for that possibility before blocking. Otherwise you get [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2|this]]. [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 13:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::@[[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]], in general yes, {{tq|allow blocked editors to blow off a bit of steam in an unblock request}}. However, the problem in this case is that the editor was blocked for yet again resembling a steam engine, and the unblock request was more of the same problem. |
|||
:::::::I see that MJP still has an editnotice saying {{tq|If you came here to whine about my behavior, don't bother}}. If that stays, it will be a pretty clear indication of intent to continue in steam engine mode. MJP gives a very strong impression that he believes that he is exempt from the policy [[WP:CIVIL]]. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 14:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Yep, I get what you're saying. If things don't change, I can only see escalating sanctions. [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 14:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
* OK, 2 admins requesting an unblock, so I will unblock. |
|||
:But I stand by my point that the community has had enough of MJP's sweary personal attack stuff. It would have been best for the prev block to have been extended as a response to the sweary unblock request, but I accept that at this point it's worth giving MJP some [[WP:ROPE]]. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 12:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::{{u|BrownHairedGirl}}, that's clearly not the point that we are making (yes, even us non-admins). This is ''seriously'' showing a lack of judgment on your part. [[User:Nihlus|<span style="padding:2px 2px;font-variant:small-caps;color:#000;letter-spacing:-0.5px">'''Nihlus'''</span>]] 12:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::Welp. Please, as one of your supporters, please take on board the gist of the discussion at ANI. W is not therapy, but you could probably use some assertiveness training. Been there; done that. [[User:Dlohcierekim|<span style="font-family:Century Gothic"><b style="color:black">Dloh<span style="color:red">cier</span><span style="color:#fcce00">ekim</span></b></span>]] [[User talk:Dlohcierekim|(talk)]] 13:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::Pants, next time you feel the urge to use the "F" word, take [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=806793514&oldid=806773541 this advice from OR] - "{{xt|next time you think you're right and someone else is being a jerk, write whatever you were going to post on-wiki in a text file instead, or maybe in a vent email to a friend, or even, if you must, in an edit window, but ''wait till tomorrow'' to decide if it's really worth posting. I've saved myself so many snarky comments that way}}". I do this, you'd be surprised at the amount of times I've been looking at a preview window reading something approximating "Well fuck you too", and thought "what blowback will I get if I hit 'publish changes'" (there's that thing about thinking one move ahead like chess again) and closing the browser and walking away without posting it. Or if you can, [[You're Breakin' My Heart|use it in mainspace]] [[The Troggs Tapes|cited to a reliable source]]. [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 13:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
==MfD nomination of [[:User talk:MjolnirPants/Editnotice]]== |
|||
[[File:Ambox warning orange.svg|30px]] [[:User talk:MjolnirPants/Editnotice]], a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for [[WP:MfD|deletion]]. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:MjolnirPants/Editnotice]] and please be sure to [[WP:SIG|sign your comments]] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). You are free to edit the content of [[:User talk:MjolnirPants/Editnotice]] during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.<!-- Template:MFDWarning --> [[User:CoolSkittle|<span style="background-color: blue; color: orange">CoolSkittle</span>]] ([[User talk:CoolSkittle|talk]]) 14:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Note from a stranger == |
|||
I couldn't help stopping by to say that though I am often what the kids would call a "lurker,' I value both your contributions and more intangible presence here. I hope you'll see fit to stick around after the present nonsense is over. Cheers. [[User:Dumuzid|Dumuzid]] ([[User talk:Dumuzid|talk]]) 15:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:33, 21 February 2019
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-enwikimedia.org.
Administrators: Information which has been oversighted was considered when this block was placed. Therefore the Oversight team or the Arbitration Committee must be consulted before this block can be removed. Administrators undoing oversight blocks without permission from an oversighter risk having their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee (per this announcement).
Note
I have every sympathy with your position, and I am just replacing this message, deleted by over zealous admins I presume. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- A section of this page has been deleted by an admin, after I restored it. Their edsum reads " I've left your note, but the rest was removed by an oversight process. Please do not restore it. " Tis a fucking joke. That was not an oversight deletion, and just appears spiteful. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- When you see a "...removed from Wikipedia's public records..." edit by an admin, it is best to leave it be. Something went on that they can't tell us about. In the past I have inquired about these sort of blocks, and have been assured by people who I trust that any action that they can't publicly give a reason for gets a lot of extra scrutiny from multiple uninvolved admins. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- That's all very well, but the content I restored was not oversight deleted, and remains in the edit history for all to see. I urge lurkers to take a look. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- There is a reason why an admin might oversight some things and delete other things as part of oversighting. Sometimes the part that gets oversighted makes the rest invalid. Somebody writes something. I respond. The bit I responded to disappears. Now my response is out if context. It doesn't have to be a direct reply either. Somebody writes something. I write something else without mentioning X because somebody has already covered X. The bit that discusses X disappears. Now it looks like I purposely avoided discussing X. And it is far from obvious from the history that deleting my comment was a good idea. Seriously, we have to trust the admins in this case. We simply do not have the information needed to determine what should and should not be restored. I don't like it any better than you do; I regularly review admin decisions and ask questions if they seem a bit fishy. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- That's all very well, but the content I restored was not oversight deleted, and remains in the edit history for all to see. I urge lurkers to take a look. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- When you see a "...removed from Wikipedia's public records..." edit by an admin, it is best to leave it be. Something went on that they can't tell us about. In the past I have inquired about these sort of blocks, and have been assured by people who I trust that any action that they can't publicly give a reason for gets a lot of extra scrutiny from multiple uninvolved admins. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, for the record, all {{OversightBlock}}s are subject to immediate review by the entire oversight team once they have been made. After changing Ivanvector’s block to an OS block, I immediately emailed the list for review. The content Roxy is discussing was not suppressed, but another OS’r felt it best to remove from the live page. I can’t really say anything else at this time. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- Since we're doing this, let me just clarify that my blanking of the text was not intended an oversight action — indeed, it was not oversighted — but rather for the reason I stated in my edit summary. Even ignoring the content, what remained was a screed-like abuse of the talkpage while blocked, and such disruptions are routinely blanked, in particular for indefinite blocks. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Note 2
I want to be entirely respectful to the decisions related to the oversight determination, as well as to what I see as a legitimate administrative decision to remove old (expired or superseded) block notices and MPants' replies to them, as well as everything between the time of the oversighted remark and what administrators and oversighters have currently left on the page. I'm not looking to interfere with any of that. But there were a large number of perfectly reasonable comments by editors who left advice or information for MPants, and I see no reason to hide any of that from him, so I am selectively restoring that. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
February 2019
I am usually on your side, I personally like you, and I also have a low opinion of the behavior of some of the editors you were dealing with, but "fuck your shitty, condescending bullshit sideways with a sandpaper dildo and hot sauce as lube"[1] really did deserve a block in the range of one day to one week. Wait out your block and then dial back on the personal attacks. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- By far the best way to deal with trolls is to deny them the attention that they seek. Responding with dildos wrapped with sandpaper and drenched in hot sauce is the exact and precise opposite of the correct way to respond to trolls. The fact that I am responding to you shows that I do not believe that you are an irredeemable troll, but rather an editor who needs to change their behavior, and I sincerely hope that you will do so. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Cullen328: I have no comment on whether you were right to block MPants or whether he should be promptly unblocked, but
you are very quick to accuse those who criticize your behavior of being politically biased against you
is apparently baseless, and you should retract it. MPants is telling the truth that he is very slow to bring politics into disputes (sometimes frustratingly so -- I've seen him refuse throughout thousands of bytes of talk page back and forth to point out the political elephant in the room). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Cullen328: I have no comment on whether you were right to block MPants or whether he should be promptly unblocked, but
I like you, Pants, but in this scenario the best option would be to say "Alright, I got annoyed and snapped and now I am chilled. I'll try to be more polite, but seriously we need more admin eyes on this disruption". That would probably have got you an unblock. As it is, 31 hours is not a long time and the block will be over soon enough. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) —Preceding undated comment added 14:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- Apparently Sinebot thinks we should have a date. Okay, I'm game, I know a bar that serves nice beer, who'll get the round in, though? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- (mentioned but not pinged) Cullen328's note about my close I think missed the background leading up to my commentary in which several editors just really wanted that thread to be put to rest. For what it's worth it was not intended to be a civility parole, but the general theme of the discussion was that your aggressive outbursts were out of line. I wrote this at the time as a warning about making more violent threats; I don't think this latest incident was one, but please do better.
- And regarding your enormous red edit notice warning: have you considered that if many people are coming here to complain about your behaviour, enough to necessitate an enormous red preemptive warning, maybe it's your behaviour that's the problem? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- MPants, my friend (and I really do mean my friend), I feel like I owe you an apology. I said, and I was speaking the truth as of that time, that I found your edit summary very funny and enjoyed it. That was a few minutes before the ANI thread opened. A day later, I feel badly about my own comment because I feel like I encouraged you to say things that I should not have encouraged. I'm generally a strong advocate for civility, and I'm feeling a little like a hypocrite today. Going forward, please avoid handing those kinds of things to the not-here trouble-makers. I say "handing" because I mean that it gives them an excuse to turn things around and make the dispute appear to be your fault. I'm unhappy with the way that this ended up. What I wish had happened was that the obvious sock had opened a complaint without anything they could really point to, and got the boomerang that they got, without anything more having happened. But you had given them something they could point to, even though they certainly had it coming. For neurotypicals, just seeing "dirty words" can be a trigger to think: "yes, that was incivil" – whereas a lot of passive-aggressive but superficially polite garbage does not trigger them in the same way. And I guess we have, and indeed should have, the same rules for neurotypicals and for those who are not. As a purely practical matter, superficial politeness, when the target does not in any way deserve it, is a useful tool in avoiding trouble from the powers-that-be. Take a look at my user talk, and note how many times I reply to editors by saying first: "Thank you for asking me that here." More than half the time, I'm actually thinking "fuck you". I'm therefore being just a little bit dishonest, hypocritical again, but it is extremely useful in keeping things moving along without a further blow-up. That's my sincere feedback, and I hope that you do not find it condescending. And I'm very concerned that, having come just after your return from your break, the block will make you feel embittered. Please don't let it discourage you. Many of us are eager to see you back! And to the various admins opining here, it would have been helpful to have had a bit of commentary about your perspectives at the ANI thread before this block was issued. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Autonova (talk) 09:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Hey MPants
I thought about you this morning, even before I discovered you were blocked, when I read a Facebook post by Omar Suleiman (imam). I don't go in for religious stuff, but the man is wise all the same. Here's his post:. You might also consider reading the simple rules for daily editing at Wikipedia:Old-Fashioned Wikipedian Values. Cheers, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
February 2019 take 2
- MJP, I have blocked your for your sweary unlock request[2] in response to your previous block, which amounted to a personal attack on the blocking editor.
- There is a clear consensus at ANI that this sweary personal attack stuff has to stop. Your use of a sweary personal attack as a request to lift a block for a sweary personal attack shows that the problem has not been resolved. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- Hang on - Pants' last block only expired, what, two hours ago and he hasn't edited since. How do you know he hasn't calmed down and taken my advice to sit the block out? You don't. As the block notice always says : "Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions." You can't just swoop in and smack the banhammer on him without giving him a chance to improve first! Can I get a show of hands for an unblock, please? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- Wow, way to escalate! Add my hand to the unblock showing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- Me also. ——SerialNumber54129 12:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict × 2) BrownHairedGirl, I tried to stay out of this mess, but this block is absolutely ridiculous. Is it not expected to have someone who is blocked vent out their frustrations? There have been multiple administrators who have shown up on this page and not blocked him; rather, they worked at deescalating the situation. You decide to come in and unnecessarily escalate it. What purpose does this block serve except to reignite the flames that just started to die down? You should reverse this block immediately. Nihlus 12:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I have serious questions about whether it is constructive (let alone policy compliant) to automatically reblock editors who react negatively to being blocked "out of the blue" as happened above. I can't possibly imagine any of the editors who don't like MPants reacting much better. Or most other long term editors for that matter. This whole affair is looking more and more like people just want MPants blocked, which seems really inappropriate given that he's a constructive member of the community who recently returned from a retirement that came about because he felt harassed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- Whatever about his other editing, the sweary personal attack stuff is not constructive; it is corrosive and destructive. Constructive work elsewhere does not give any editor a licence to engage in WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with that, but we have a pretty long-standing tradition that we allow blocked editors to blow off a bit of steam in an unblock request, especially if it happens during a stressful drama situation. I've seen blocks extended when attacking responses are extreme, but I really don't see that's the case here - I think it's usually more appropriate to revoke TPA for the duration of a block if the response is excessively bad. But I don't think I've ever seen a blocked editor left to sit out a block until it expires, and then get another block as a response to their unblock request. If an escalation in response to a bad unblock request is needed, it should be done at the time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- Like a game of chess, you need to think a couple of moves ahead. Even if you are certain a block is absolutely the right thing to do and can confidently back it up with policy, it is always a good idea to go straight to ANI and say what you have done and why, appreciate the block may be controversial, and be willing to listen to objections, and sign off with "if any administrator has a good reason to disagree with the block, please reverse it without waiting for my permission". Anything you can do to prove to the community that it's nothing personal. Worked example here. I appreciate you did post on ANI, but you only posted your opinions, not that you'd blocked. You certainly can't mute the fan club that turns up objecting to the block, so you need to accommodate for that possibility before blocking. Otherwise you get this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Boing! said Zebedee, in general yes,
allow blocked editors to blow off a bit of steam in an unblock request
. However, the problem in this case is that the editor was blocked for yet again resembling a steam engine, and the unblock request was more of the same problem. - I see that MJP still has an editnotice saying
If you came here to whine about my behavior, don't bother
. If that stays, it will be a pretty clear indication of intent to continue in steam engine mode. MJP gives a very strong impression that he believes that he is exempt from the policy WP:CIVIL. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)- Yep, I get what you're saying. If things don't change, I can only see escalating sanctions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Boing! said Zebedee, in general yes,
- Like a game of chess, you need to think a couple of moves ahead. Even if you are certain a block is absolutely the right thing to do and can confidently back it up with policy, it is always a good idea to go straight to ANI and say what you have done and why, appreciate the block may be controversial, and be willing to listen to objections, and sign off with "if any administrator has a good reason to disagree with the block, please reverse it without waiting for my permission". Anything you can do to prove to the community that it's nothing personal. Worked example here. I appreciate you did post on ANI, but you only posted your opinions, not that you'd blocked. You certainly can't mute the fan club that turns up objecting to the block, so you need to accommodate for that possibility before blocking. Otherwise you get this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with that, but we have a pretty long-standing tradition that we allow blocked editors to blow off a bit of steam in an unblock request, especially if it happens during a stressful drama situation. I've seen blocks extended when attacking responses are extreme, but I really don't see that's the case here - I think it's usually more appropriate to revoke TPA for the duration of a block if the response is excessively bad. But I don't think I've ever seen a blocked editor left to sit out a block until it expires, and then get another block as a response to their unblock request. If an escalation in response to a bad unblock request is needed, it should be done at the time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- Whatever about his other editing, the sweary personal attack stuff is not constructive; it is corrosive and destructive. Constructive work elsewhere does not give any editor a licence to engage in WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I have serious questions about whether it is constructive (let alone policy compliant) to automatically reblock editors who react negatively to being blocked "out of the blue" as happened above. I can't possibly imagine any of the editors who don't like MPants reacting much better. Or most other long term editors for that matter. This whole affair is looking more and more like people just want MPants blocked, which seems really inappropriate given that he's a constructive member of the community who recently returned from a retirement that came about because he felt harassed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- OK, 2 admins requesting an unblock, so I will unblock.
- But I stand by my point that the community has had enough of MJP's sweary personal attack stuff. It would have been best for the prev block to have been extended as a response to the sweary unblock request, but I accept that at this point it's worth giving MJP some WP:ROPE. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- BrownHairedGirl, that's clearly not the point that we are making (yes, even us non-admins). This is seriously showing a lack of judgment on your part. Nihlus 12:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- Welp. Please, as one of your supporters, please take on board the gist of the discussion at ANI. W is not therapy, but you could probably use some assertiveness training. Been there; done that. Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- Pants, next time you feel the urge to use the "F" word, take this advice from OR - "next time you think you're right and someone else is being a jerk, write whatever you were going to post on-wiki in a text file instead, or maybe in a vent email to a friend, or even, if you must, in an edit window, but wait till tomorrow to decide if it's really worth posting. I've saved myself so many snarky comments that way". I do this, you'd be surprised at the amount of times I've been looking at a preview window reading something approximating "Well fuck you too", and thought "what blowback will I get if I hit 'publish changes'" (there's that thing about thinking one move ahead like chess again) and closing the browser and walking away without posting it. Or if you can, use it in mainspace cited to a reliable source. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- Welp. Please, as one of your supporters, please take on board the gist of the discussion at ANI. W is not therapy, but you could probably use some assertiveness training. Been there; done that. Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
MfD nomination of User talk:MjolnirPants/Editnotice
User talk:MjolnirPants/Editnotice, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:MjolnirPants/Editnotice and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User talk:MjolnirPants/Editnotice during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. CoolSkittle (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Note from a stranger
I couldn't help stopping by to say that though I am often what the kids would call a "lurker,' I value both your contributions and more intangible presence here. I hope you'll see fit to stick around after the present nonsense is over. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)