Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1003

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

Noticeboard archives



Some very strange edits by user:Levalbert. Uploaded an image of male genitalia as own work and then added the picture to numerous articles (Human penis size, Human penis, Male reproductive system, Sex organ , .Foreskin, Glans penis, Body hair, Pubic hair) Arguably good faith, but all additions removed as not needed, not an improvement, or simply bad illustrations (an end-on picture is not very useful in most articles). After warning from me and comment by user:Ianmacm Levalbert redirected talk page to Wikipedia:Levalbert , blanked the page, and then redirected this to Wikipedia:DêsaasABC. Blanking warnings is allowed, but hiding them by moving them to a soon to be deleted page is not appropriate. I can't undo the moves so this will need admin (or at least someone with page mover permission) to unravel. Meters (talk) 10:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Levalbert has been rather naughty here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
FYI they have been blanked again. Please speedy delete them. (talk) 11:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
I think I fixed it. I did a history merge to combine the old talk page and new talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
That's perfect. The history is back. Meters (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
I can see the argument for including the image at Pubic hair, but it's a substandard example for the rest of those articles. Levivich 03:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Comment. I would like to point out that taking a picture of your member and posting all around the site is not the thing we are discussing... because it technically isn't a violation the way he did it. Gosh, Wikipedia is so freaking weird sometimes.. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk- 02:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
...that anyone can edit... Levivich 02:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
When we say anyone can be a member here, this isn’t what we mean. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
All users are equal, but some users are more equal than others. Abelmoschus Esculentus (talkcontribs) 14:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't know if I'd agree it's not a violation. While we normally do not consider people adding images they created to articles a COI problem, IMO they can be especially when there is clearly a promotional aspect to it. To give a simpler example, if I took an image of myself where I am readily identifiable, and then started adding it to the human, Man, Chinese people, Overseas Chinese, New Zealanders, Malaysians, Malaysian Chinese, European New Zealanders, Chinese New Zealanders, and a bunch of other articles, it seems to me this is a COI problem or something, even if the image is technically on topic on each of them. There's also the question of WP:NOTHERE, was this editor adding these because they believed they made those articles better, or for some other reason? Note that I'm not saying there's already need for sanction, simply that do think there's a fair chance it violates one or more guidelines or policies. Nil Einne (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps some new COI-declaration templates are in order: {{thisismypenis}} and {{thisisnotmypenis}}? Levivich 18:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
The fact that this is can be debated is the real kicker here. Also, this thread is honestly slightly hilarious. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk- 05:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── The files have been nominated for deletion at Commons, but until that takes place I've requested they be added to the WP:BIL. Home Lander (talk) 04:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Unconstructive image replacements[edit]

A chicken in every bowl, fruit on every cake, and a block until this editor communicates. Legacypac (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please see his contribs.

I have been reverting, so am involved, so will leave this to other admins.

After multiple warnings by a number of other editors, this user simply reverts the usertalk posts and carries on. The problem is generally replacing good lead images with objectively worse ones.

Recent examples:

  • At Fruit cake, this image of fruit cake actually shows the fruit cake. He replaced it with an iced birthday cake. The icing obscures the fruit cake, and the fact that it is a birthday cake, covered with fresh fruit and words, really makes it unrepresentative of a fruit cake. He also added the caption "birthday furit cake", misspelled and with "birthday" lower case "b".

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: I think you forgot to notify him.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh dear, you're right. I seldom post here so I forgot. Thanks! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Done. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I seldom post here so I forgot: obviously smarter than the rest of us.Face-smile.svg--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
According to tests, I am marginally smarter than a lemur, so not sure what that says about you lot. (However, I "...can harvest vegetables...and do domestic work...", so there's that.) SNice.svg Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Anna, the editor hasn't posted since you left your notice on their talk page. I don't think immediate action is called for here on ANI. Let's see how they respond to your message (and whether they respond to it) before taking additional action. Let's hear from them. Liz Read! Talk! 01:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Liz. Good plan. I really just want a few more eyeballs on their contribs. Taking things slowly is a good idea. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I very much agree that these image edits are suboptimal and I have added those articles to my watchlist, as well as the user talk page. On the other hand, those articles ought to have a worldwide perspective. We have no Chicken noodle soup article, and that is a redirect to Chicken soup. Adding noodles to chicken soup is commonplace in the United States and Canada, but less so in the rest of the world. So, it is not inherently wrong to add a photo of a whole chicken in chicken broth to an article about chicken soup that discusses that broad topic worldwide. I just served chicken soup to my wife who is not feeling well, and it was more of a broth and had no noodles in it. But this editor needs to discuss these images and the ones that they have tried to replace. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
For me (with my Asian connections) there's a big difference between chicken soup and chicken noodle soup. But putting that aside, a whole chicken in a bowl of broth is not a good infobox illustration of chicken soup - I've never been served a bowl of soup (anywhere in the world) with a whole chicken in it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Boing! said Zebedee. Had you been served that, it would have been on the menu as "whole chicken in soup" rather than "chicken soup with a whole chicken sitting in it". This seems to be something I want the editor to understand: the main element in the infobox photo should match the article title. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm just glad I didn't order beef soup! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Cullen328. I'm not sure how I didn't notice that. It was early here and my coffee level was low. Anyhow, yes, the article is about soup. The replacement image's main element is a whole chicken. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
And just to point something out, what I think about an image is not so important. Many editors are reverting most image replacements. That is a problem. Ideally, the editor will communicate back and forth on their talk page take our advice. They seem to ignore guidance on images as well as BRD. I think they mean well, though. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I see we don't have an article on this type of chicken. —CambridgeBayWeather 14:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

If offered, just say neigh. DMacks (talk) 00:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Somewhat arbitrary section break[edit]

I've noticed the user seems to be aware of this thread but continues to make edits replacing photographs in articles. @Geoffreyrabbit: You're at risk of a block if you keep this up without saying anything. -- a. get in the spam hole | get nosey 17:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Looking at their contributions, this activity has been going on for quite a while. Proposal: I suggest a topic ban from replacing images in any Wikipedia article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I'd support that topic ban. I'm concerned their consistent failure to engage with other WP contributors will lead to an inevitable WP:COMMUNICATION block. -- a. get in the spam hole | get nosey 08:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I suggest the user should be blocked until they respond to the concerns raised, which they are clearly now aware of and are ignoring. Communication is key to a collaborative project. Fish+Karate 09:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
The standard ANI notice doesn't say to join the discussion or even that it's an advisable or appropriate thing to do, nor does it link to the particular thread. Maybe that should be changed, but until then... I have posted a more direct suggestion on the editor's talk page here. It seems there may be a language barrier that could be causing some misunderstanding. Levivich 23:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Good news, everyone! My talk page post has been read. Levivich 04:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
And they promptly went back to replacing images, Enough. I have blocked the user until they communicate with others and respond to the issues that have been raised. They can do so on their talk page. The block is indefinite but not permanent, I'm happy for any admin to lift it once Geoffreyrabbit responds to these concerns, no need to check with me first. Fish+Karate 09:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, it's been read. [1]. Fish+Karate 10:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I think this can be closed, if an uninvolved person would like to do so. No haikus this time, I want a limerick. I'll keep an eye on the user's talk page to see if they want to resume editing, until they begin communicating there they can stay blocked. Fish+Karate 10:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

There was an old lady from Caerphilly

Who could not engage in civility

She was taken to ANI

Where she was warned about using semprini

And in a huff deleted her activity. Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

There once was a young man named Steve, whose rhyming left all most aggrieved. While he gave it a go, it was rubbish, and so, never do limericks please. Fish+Karate 11:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
What do you expect in 3 minutes, Vogon poetry?Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
No, but now I know what I'm doing for my next ANI close. Fish+Karate 14:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Just to throw a thought in... after reviewing the editor's activity on WP, it's fairly clear they are not particularly fluent in English, and I would question their ability to function adequately as an editor. Wikipedia:Competence is required Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:37, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree, but until they respond in any way we'll never know for sure. Fish+Karate 14:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the Wikipedian version of the saying is, but something like, "Better to stay quiet and let others AGF than to speak and prove CIR." Levivich 21:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

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

User:MPants at work reported by User:Luciusfoxx for severe Personal Attacks and threats[edit]

Wrapping the Luciusfoxx and MjolnirPants threads
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

OP blocked. Legacypac (talk) 01:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
post close commentMjolnirPants blocked 31 hours by Cullen for disruption. Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page: User talk:Luciusfoxx (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MPants at work (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

User:MPants at work has engaged in severe (at times, even verbally violent) Personal attacks and threats:

  1. [2]she tells me,"fuck off"
  2. [3]tells me to "get over myself" for refusing to agree with her unsolicited opinion on politics
  3. [4]threatens to wiki-lawyer me with frivolous ANIs
  4. [5]she tells me,"fuck your shitty, condescending bullshit sideways with a sandpaper dildo and hot sauce as lube"
  1. Personal attacks evidence Personal attacks from User:MPants at work began with remarks like "get over yourself" and unprovoked, pre-emptive thinly-veiled threats like "you just are just begging to be quoted in an ANI thread about you". They are clearly uncivil, lack good faith, and are forms of personal attacks. Yet after my humble polite warning to keep it civil, the editor doubles-down on her personal attacks from with verbal sexual assault telling me in her edit summary"fuck your shitty, condescending bullshit sideways with a sandpaper dildo and hot sauce as lube."[6] and then vandalizing my talk page, saying "fuck off" and proceeding to threaten me with an ANI over what she considers to be "the blatant hypocrisy" my opinions.[7] Just because she does not like my opinion, does not mean she has the right to attack me. I would imagine anyone with enough knowledge and experience to threaten with an ANI is also knowledgeable enough to know that this kind of severe NSFW language and sexually derogatory harassment of another at least constitutes a personal attack, let alone language never acceptable here.
  2. Warning given: I politely gave a warning to apply good faith and to cease the personal attacks.[8] In retaliation, the disruptive editor attacked me again, with two severe personal attacks, one of which (again) was verbally violent and sexually derogatory.

Personal attacks and threats against me AFTER my warning:

  1. [9]
  2. [10]

This is pretty cut and dry. For those reviewing, thank you for your time and understanding.Luciusfoxx (talk) 21:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@MPants at work:

  • I'm not inclined to dig through the history here, but for a bit of background see the OP's fuckwittery and disruption at Talk:Dinesh D'Souza#Felony status, which appears to be the root cause of the dispute that led to this. Sure, losing one's temper is a bad thing, but it's clear there are very much two sides to this particular story and only one is being presented here. ‑ Iridescent 22:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) The sandpaper comment is ... a lot, but I don't think this is really actionable. I'd recommend looking at the context for this, regardless: Talk:Dinesh_D'Souza#Felony_status. This looks like another case study in (a) how much leeway do we give someone when dealing with brand new blatant-POV-pushers with woefully poor grasp of NPOV or RS and a greater-than-their-edit-count grasp of templates and process, and (b) how much leeway do we give someone concerning their own talk page. The latter has typically been quite a lot. The former has typically been greater than when engaging with other editors clearly here to collaboratively build a neutral encyclopedia. Maybe better to just ignore, report to NPOVN, or wait for the inevitable TBAN... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Tsk. I made exactly ONE mild edit to the D'Souza page, which was civil. When I was reverted, I left it alone. I kept my talk page discussion focused on content, not editors, and only offered my own humble opinion about D'Souza. There was nothing "disruptive" or even provocative about my personal opinion (which I kept to a minimum) regarding what belongs in a lead paragraph. However, it speaks for itself if you honestly think that sexually derogatory attacks or verbally violent language from an editor who has already been warned and been banned over this kind of behavior "is not actionable". Why have rules at all then in the presence of said anarchy and open-sport on depravity? However, flawed your logic is, thank you for your time and opinion.Luciusfoxx (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I made exactly ONE mild edit to the D'Souza page, which was civil. When I was reverted, I left it alone. I kept my talk page discussion focused on content, not editors, and only offered my own humble opinion about D'Souza. There was nothing "disruptive" or even provocative about my personal opinion (which I kept to a minimum) regarding what belongs in a lead are aware that we can read, right? Incidentally, see also this. ‑ Iridescent 22:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Substantially, I was referring to my one edit on the actual article itself. Not the talk. On the talk page itself was only one primary rebuttal, and three short replies (I think) to different editors. Not including minor edits to fix grammar and the like, it was hardly what you are making out to be.Luciusfoxx (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I guess there are two options here (at least there are two that aren't counterfactual). (1) We can regard this as a two-way problem where both the accuser and the accused should be sanctioned, or (2) We can regard this as a two-way problem where both the accuser and the accused should be told to calm down and avoid one another for a while. I think the shortest route back to peaceful editing (which ought to be the objective) is number 2. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Broken promise on civility[edit]

MjolnirPants (talk · contribs) and his alt-account MPants at work have engaged in gross incivility yet again. In October 2018 there was a turbulent ANI subthread about MjolnirPants' incivility: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive995#Incivility. The closing statement was MjolnirPants (and MPants at work) has agreed to treat fellow editors with respect and to dial back on rhetoric when addressing blatant racism, and has been warned that any additional commentary suggesting a threat of violence will be met with an immediate block.

The ANI thread also lead to the widely-participated "Fuck off" RfC. During the RfC, MPants self-requested to be blocked and was done so for 3 months[11]. After coming back after the block expired on February 5, he has apparently returned to his old ways:

  • Violence fantasies[12] The context here is humorous, but it's worth noting that MPants was warned for threats of violence in the last ANI thread.
  • After being given a civility template by a new user called Luciusfoxx (talk · contribs), MPants removed it from his talk page with the edit summary: fuck your shitty, condescending bullshit sideways with a sandpaper dildo and hot sauce as lube.[13]
  • He then banned Luciusfoxx from his talk page with the title "You can stay the fuck off my talk page"[14]

Clearly treating others with respect was just an empty promise to avoid being blocked in the last ANI thread. I have been banned from his talkpage for requesting him to remove a -180deg code there[15], so I am unable to bring this up that way. --Pudeo (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Luciusfoxx passive-aggressive bullshit really is tiresome. It does need to be fucked with a sandpaper dildo. That is of course, not the same as saying Luciousfoxx needs to be fucked with a sandpaper dildo. A distinction which is pretty small to be fair. Asking for comments from 'non-liberal objective' editors is pretty much asking to be slapped with DS warning let alone being told in plain English 'keep this up and you will end up at a noticeboard'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
This kind of comment speaks for itself, and the problem here.Luciusfoxx (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't have too much more to add to this beyond what I wrote above, but .... violence fantasies is nonsense. Objective3000 said, in the context of the sometimes unpleasant atmosphere in parts of Wikipedia, "I treat it like a video game with AI characters designed to annoy me." MP followed on that line by saying "I usually shoot annoying NPCs in video games." To read it here you'd think MP was issuing subtle threats rather than carrying on a jokey metaphor about nobody in particular... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
However, this is not simply jokey and you are placing less of a priority on that kind of behavior than what you just complained about. Obvious red-herring is obvious.Luciusfoxx (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I was actually thinking of responding to MP: “Wow, you need help – or more bullets.” Obviously, this wasn’t anything like a threat or even fantasy. And, I differ with MP as he likes guns and I think the age for ownership should be raised to 100. I am a strong believer in civility WP:5P4. Civility is lacking everywhere in human discourse and that’s problematic. But, I also believe in frank characterizations, which may border on incivility. Fact is, MP’s history clearly displays a willingness to argue for additions/deletions contrary to his own beliefs. That is, he takes the side of neutrality over what might aide a case for his own beliefs. We need more of this. We need editors that can call out POV editing even if it fits their own beliefs. How else can we stay true to our concept of neutrality and honest presentation in a time of great controversy? O3000 (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm curious why Pudeo keeps showing up to complain about me, given that we've never interacted outside of these threads. Check our contributions; this editor has never interacted with me except by starting ANI threads in an attempt to get me sanctioned. It's childish and pretty much textbook harassment. And their "evidence" above is pure spin. "He enjoy playing Far Cry, therefore he must be menace!!" Give me a fucking break. One might note that in all of Pudeo's contributions at any of the drama boards, they've never once failed to a) attack a liberal-seeming editor or b) defend a conservative seeming editor. Add to that the fact that they kept a swastika on their user page with a pithy little note that reads more like an excuse to keep it up every time I see it, and a pretty clear picture begins to emerge of what, exactly, Pudeo is doing on this project.
As for Lucious; they insulted me twice while trying to be subtle about it (once asking for "non-liberal, objective (read: neutral) editors" after I responded to a ridiculous edit suggestion, and then again claiming they would be offended if someone called them a liberal after I self-identified as one), then had the audacity to template me for non-existent personal attacks. This playing the victim schtick from obvious POV pushers (how obvious, you ask? How about claiming that a convicted felon is "a law-abiding citizen unlike Weiner or the Clintons" in the same comment in which he directly accuses Hillary Clinton of treason).
So yeah, my response was salty. It was also another experienced editor's "favorite edit summary", because it is exactly what I wrote it to be: snort-milk-out-your-nose funny. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I do not have a quarrel with you. I pity you. I never baited or directed an insult, Mpants. My remark was clearly a general remark asking for non-partisan, non-liberal and, yes, non-conservative editors to come in and chime in on the debate since a non-biased editor who is not invested politically in the article carries weight. There was nothing in that remark directed at you, and I dare you, Mpants, to show any one where that was the case. And, yes, I did say that labeling someone as liberal, (or even conservative, etc.) would be you don't know me and I don't know you. Labeling, period, is insulting. Again, nothing there directed at you personally. Your thin-skin is not my sin. You are just trying to rationalize clearly inappropriate behavior, behavior you've apparently been admonished for before. Thank you taking the time to open up about your motives.Luciusfoxx (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
My gripe is that you are driving other editors (some of which I happen to like) away with your extreme hostility. Yet if anyone says something negative, you ban them from your talkpage. It's hard not to notice you since your hostile discussions take place on noticeboards. Just a while ago you had a spat with Walter Görlitz on RSN and said he might be blocked for insults like saying your thinking isn't clear.[16]. You realize he or I would be blocked for saying what you just said because we don't have a WP:UNBLOCKABLES posse defending whatever we do? That is very arrogant. For what's it worth, it's also important to oppose these kind of double standards on policy enforcement because what's enabling your abusive behauvior is that you know you can get away with it. --Pudeo (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
My gripe is that you are driving other editors (some of which I happen to like) away with your extreme hostility. Name one.
Yet if anyone says something negative, you ban them from your talkpage. Bullshit. I just responded to a message that was essentially the same as Lucius' templated message by welcoming it.
You realize he or I would be blocked for saying what you just said because we don't have a WP:UNBLOCKABLES posse defending whatever we do? Walter directly insulted me, and is not blocked, so that's some bullshit, right there. But maybe you should ask yourself why other editors don't seem to want to come to your defense, while they seem happy to come to the defense of a guy whom you seem to think insults anyone who disagrees with him.
That is very arrogant. Being defended by others is arrogant? That word you keep using... I do not think it means what you think it means.
For what's it worth, it's also important to oppose these kind of double standards on policy enforcement because what's enabling your abusive behauvior is that you know you can get away with it. You keep patting yourself on the back like that and you'll get tennis elbow. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • And the editor who described it as a favorite edit summary was me. (Actually, my real favorite was when I reverted an edit at Flying Spaghetti Monster as being "unsourced and unsauced", but whatever.) The bottom line here is that MPants was baited. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I get very uncomfortable excusing things because of "baiting" as though Wikipedia editors cannot be held accountable for their actions if someone else did something first. I wish that MP would just keep it mellow, or at least leave the spicy personal massagers and whatnot out of it (and, well, everything). While I don't think that baiting is a viable excuse, I do think that those rules about civility stem from the idea that Wikipedia is a community of editors. A probable sock clearly with no intention of contributing to a neutral, well-sourced article is not the same thing. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • OK, maybe "baiting" wasn't the most precise word choice (although the project has no shortage of master baiters), but I really do think that the dispute here begins with Luciusfoxx, whose user page is a declaration of pro-Trump POV-pushing, starting a discussion by saying that Trump's pardon of D'Souza means that D'Souza was innocent and was the victim of a "hit-job". Does that justify an angry dismissal from a user talk page? Well, the anger didn't just come out of the blue. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I know it's a little early, but it's never too early to celebrate pasta. Dlohcierekim (talk)
Oh, I'm always polite to polite people, even when they look like fringe POV pushers (case in point). It's bullshit like Lucius' smarmy condescension and not-so-subtle insults that lends itself to smartassery on my part. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I'll give you better odds - 2:1 - than Bishonen - it's User:Hidden Tempo. Purposefully trying to provoke one of his "old enemies" with passive aggressive bullshit.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I' will not take that bet. I know a bad deal when I see one. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Without the tools, too risky a bet as Hidden Tempo is a chameleon. O3000 (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
The D'Souza talk page has gems like this from LuciusFoxxx: "the treason that Hillary committed by sharing classified emails and trying to destroy the Kavanaugh nomination". If I read that correctly he thinks Hillary Clinton committed treason by trying to destroy the Kavanaugh nomination. There's so many idiotic claims packed into that short phrase that regardless of whether it's HT or not, it's got to be either a troll or an extreme case of WP:COMPETENCE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Tsk, tsk. Yet democracy had its say on both Hillary and Kavanaugh. Winners don't call losers "idiots", they don't have to. Now that we both had our 2 cents, since it seems you are really obsessed with my opinion in no less than several posts from youabout me, can we keep the soapboxing out of this thread now that you got your fix? ;) As for the business of this thread - Having read up on Hidden-Tempo. All your PTSD and projection makes a little more sense. If he's a chameleon, then an elephant is an oversized rodent. Don't give that apparently no-there editor too much credit. For everything you must've put up with you'd have my empathy if it wasn't for all your subtle cligue(ish) trolling against me. Objective3000l, I'd listen to Mpants. Everyone else. I will take that bet, on me of course. Wishing this was Vegas about now. For once you are making sense, Mpants. I suppose even a broken record, I mean, watch can be right once a day. I know it's twice, and I have the feeling with your jokes and distractions, enabled by the other disruptive editors, that is your way of acknowledging the mistake in your actions in your own "salty" way. Your tonal change and h-mming and h-awing insecurity just barely under the words gives it away. So I guess that makes 2. If that's all it takes to get away with clearly and deliberately disruptive behavior --- bad joking around, distracting and whataboutism --- then the time is officially up insofar as my duty bring order to this unmanagable chaos. There is nothing "salty" or "jokey" about that kind of personal, sexually derogatory verbal attack. Lame excuses with even weaker words. Maybe wikipedia like the rest of the world is hitting rockbottom. Thankfully I have a thick skin, though I confess comparing me to someone like this Hiddentempo stung a little. Regardless of the outcome of this row, everyone, lighten up a little next time. Will ya? LoL Your blood pressure(s) with thank you for it.Luciusfoxx (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to close[edit]

Now that the spleen-venting and dazzling repartee have run down, and the discussion degenerated to base pasta-pushing, with an unknown effect on our blood pressures, can we close with no further action as victim and victor (whoever they might be) seem ready to move on. And shan't we all just "lighten up"?

Can an admin please explain to Pudeo that this campaign to get me blocked is not cool? Especially when it requires twisting the truth into a gordian knot to make a case. This thread was far more of a disruption than my edit summary was. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support close and boomerang it's clear as mud from here, and the trolling's not getting any clearer.——SerialNumber54129 00:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Obvious sock has been blocked; we should try a little harder not to get trolled so easily. MJP's "fuck you, you goddamn fucking fucker" shtick is getting old, but I assume we'll wait to do something about it until he isn't being obviously baited by a sock. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
    Ye gad! Who saw that coming? Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Good point. Now, how do we react more quickly than by baiting the baiters?Face-smile.svg Seems we need to go through this timesink process whenever.... And, these events are becoming more common. O3000 (talk) 01:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Proposal: indef block for MjolnirPants[edit]

Closing this per WP:OVERSIGHT and the Streisand effect.

MjolnirPants and their alternate account MPants at work are blocked indefinitely for, to put it lightly, posting oversightable material while this discussion was ongoing. This block is in my capacity as administrator and is not intended to reflect the consensus of this discussion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

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

(I've renamed this section from "Pants Reopened" since a !vote for indeffing the user is apparently underway below. Isa (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC))

  • The latest news is that I declined MJP's unblock request, since it did not adequately address...well you know the phrase. Admins, go see if you think my decline was fair. I do not like blocking an editor like MJP any more than Cullen328 does, I'm sure; I wouldn't have placed the block, but Cullen did probably also because he's more courageous than me. I would have likely granted a serious unblock request; maybe one will come, and I then someone should grant it. But here's the thing (see also Floquenbeam's comment right above this)--I do not really think MP was baited, and I think this might have been handled better earlier, with the help of an admin/ANI, and then Lucius (whoever he is) would have been done away with earlier. Drmies (talk) 05:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • For good measure, I also declined an (even longer) unblock request from Luciusfoxx. Drmies (talk) 05:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I do not really think MP was baited...

REALLY? Oh for the love of God. He was not only baited, the baiting was aided and abetted by Pudeo. --Calton | Talk 08:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Have to say I agree with both the block, and the rejection of the unblock request. As with some others, I'm not seeing the baiting. The Dinesh D'Souza suggestions were silly, but while there were some minor personal attacks like "non-liberal, objective (read: neutral)", if people can't tolerate these sort of minor things without blowing up like that, I think the American politics topic area, or really any politics topic area, is not one for them. Likewise WP:DTTR does not mean if someone does template you one time, you can blow up in a way seriously out of proportion to the templating.

Note that I do not consider the silliness of the proposals at Dinesh D'Souza in any way baiting, or justification for blowing up like that. For starters, while the proposals may have been silly, they weren't someway intended to attack MJP. Or if there is some background that I'm not aware of which means MJP takes such silly proposals very personally, while they have their sympathies, but the best solution is for them to stay away from that article when it means so much to them. The non personal aspects of dealing with silly proposals is not justification for reacting in that way.

Ultimately paraphrasing what someone else said, while there are a lot of problems in the American politics area at the moment, comments like that of MJP aren't helping the situation any, they are making it worse.

(And frankly, I think there's a bias in the way we deal with these sort of things. I get the feeling if an Indian or Pakistani or a Croatian, Serbian or Bosnian had left a comment remotely similar in response to basically the same thing i.e. someone making a completely silly proposal, then say they wanted the opinions of non 'other side' editors (read neutral), then being templated with a civility warning, they wouldn't have received a block as lenient as 31 hours.)

Incidentally, I'm unclear what role Pudeo played in this. They don't seem to have made any comments at Talk:Dinesh D'Souza or made any recent at User talk:MjolnirPants. They did comment in this thread, or more accurately open this subthread but whatever the rights and wrongs of their comments in this thread, clearly they are not the cause of MjolnirPants making comments which are part of the reason this thread was started. Unless MjolnirPants is a time traveler, in which case can they tell us when the US gets rid of Trump?

P.S. In case it's unclear, I'm saying in my opinion the block was justified before the whole thread was started from what MJP had already did which was raised in the beginning of this thread, in particular that edit summary. Therefore comments in the thread itself are largely irrelevant to any baiting suggestions and I've only skimmed through it.

Nil Einne (talk) 09:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

P.S. As a point of clarification, I would have far more sympathy if Luciousfoxx was expressing racist, sexist or other beyond the pale sentiments, but they weren't. Nil Einne (talk) 10:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I have left a note on Pants' talk page endorsing the block. I understand exactly where he's coming from on this, and get the frustration that comes from trying to keep ARBAP articles in check; however I cannot possibly work out any way that suggesting the other party inserts sandpaper in some unpleasant bodily part is in any way conductive or helpful to resolving the dispute. I suppose if I had to link to something it would be WP:NOTTHERAPY - you cannot say "fuck you, fuck you and fuck you .... who's next?" and not expect to get criticism over it being "an appropriate cathartic response". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I also support this block and (not for the first time since they got the bit) I'm very grateful to Cullen for being willing to step in and take an administrative action necessary to enforce our baseline behavioural standards. And I say all of this as as someone who does think that Mjolnir was baited here--or at a bare minimum, the other party's conduct showed such tendentiousness and was so laden with a lack of self-awareness regarding their own personal attacks, that MP was well within their rights to treat those comments as functionally identical to trolling, regardless of original intent behind them. Indeed, I was contemplating opening an ANI on Lucius when I noticed that they had already opened their own here and torpedoed themselves, saving me the trouble. But Mjolnir's response was beyond the pall and well past anything that can be tolerated on this project, even had this been long-term and express harassment.
When I was a child, I was taught a simple maxim (indeed, it is so simple that Mjolnir may find it patronizing to have it raised here, but it nevertheless represents the crux of what cost him a block and why I think the same thing is likely to happen again if he doesn't make some adjustments to how he deals with conflict on this project): two wrongs do not make a right. Not only was it not appropriate for MP to respond to this behaviour with a counter-PA, his response in this instance was far, far more disruptive to good order and violative of our conduct standards than was the comment to which he was responding. Violent sexual imagery (or for that matter, any string of vulgarities directed at another user in the context of a personal dispute) is never the solution and it's never going to be ignored here. All one accomplishes in making such comments is to become assimilated into the troll's disruption. Bluntly, if a random strategic template is all that it takes to get that response out of someone, they need to adult-up and fortify their emotional discipline by a factor of about 10,000%, because that response to that situation was that out of proportion. Most users would have rolled their eyes and ignored that comment, maybe remove it from their talk page without comment. Mjolnir is not required to do that, of course, but his response needs to be something short of a nuclear offensive of sexually threatening language, as he is surely aware.
Indeed, not only do I have to reluctantly voice support for the short-term block for MP, seeing as this is this the first time that the community has asked him to turn down the volume in personal disputes (even where he is not the aggressor starting the brujaja), I think if we see anything of a similar tone in the future, the community will have to consider a more substantial, long-term response. I say this without enthusiasm, as MP was dealing with a clearly WP:NOTHERE editor, and because he delivers not-insubstantial contributions to the encyclopedia. But the costs to the project that accrue when we do not enforce our basic behavioural standards will always end up dwarfing the contributions of any one editor. I hope that Mjolnir will be able to see that almost every response that he has received asking him to make adjustments (both here and on his talk page) come with caveats expressing appreciation for his work generally, and he will thus be able to understand this is not a dogpile that embraces what might have been the troll's objective from the outset (tearing him down in the eyes of the community), but rather an effort to preserve a colleague's valuable contributions without compromising our standards on civility and disruption. Snow let's rap 21:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • As long as we are here again, I was going to wait for the dust to settle and then open an RfC on Pants excited utterances. SO I endorse his block and ask that he be admonished to just plain stop the problem behavior we are so aware of. Going forward, it needs to stop. Baited or not. Violent sexual imagery is right out; it should result in an immediate block if it recurs. He needs to learn to ignore or respond in a manner that does not worsen the situation and make him look like a hothead with poor impulse control. And, yes, I like most of what he does here, but he's becoming a net negative. Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
    oppose indef Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
    I think an indef is too extreme at this point. First block for this particular issue. Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Nothing against MJP but personally I endorse the block, It's one thing telling someone to fuck off but it's another to say what he did, Sure I've on the odd occasion told someone to "F Off or even "Go F Yourself" ... but IMHO they're nothing compared to his comment. –Davey2010Talk 22:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Am I the only one here who thinks that "Pants Reopened" was not the most felicitous choice of words? Anyway, Looking back at this ANI thread from top to bottom, I'm struck by all the piling on with endorsements of the block, after pretty much crickets along those lines before the block happened. Yes, it's very courageous to agree with it after someone else has taken the first step. I actually think in hindsight that the block was justified, but still. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • TBH, I recommennded closing too soon as I thought the fire was out, and then it was closed, reopened and closed again. That was my fault in trying too hard to get us past the issue w/o someone getting blocked. All fell apart, didn't it? Now both are blocked. Now that he is blocked, well Cullen was right. And as this has been reopened, we might as well as deal with the conduct here and now. Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Ironically, and in my defense, I was going for :Tryptofish option 2 Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • And in your further defense, both of us were right. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • It's not only possible but likely (given the sentiments expressed above) that most of those commenting since the block are admins who were absent for the initial (and very brief) discussion who would have been willing to let the matter drop without blocking MP, seeing as the discussion was already closed. But when Cullen did block MP and received a response from Mjolnir suggesting Cullen was out of line/"stirring up shit", those very same admins felt compelled to point out (in a civil but blunt fashion) that at the end of the day no one was responsible for that block but Mjolnir himself. That all seems pretty above-board, good-faith and perfectly reasonable to me--and I suspect that many of those users (just as yourself on MP's talk page) have his best interests in mind and are trying to make sure he takes away the right lesson from this, rather than just feeling embittered. That said, the message I hope he listens most attentively to is yours--particularly as regards the practical benefits that can be leveraged from using a reserved/civil approach even when dealing with those editors who deserve it least. One doesn't have to to be a saint to understand the advantages of keeping cool in the face of provocation, as you quite rightly point out there. Snow let's rap 00:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse block And if the editor doesn't directly address the reasons for this block (I couldn't see any in his unblock request), extend block indefinitely to avoid disruption. I've seen many of his types and like his verbosity at a personal level (humour, et al); but crap is crap and should be sounded out and blocked. Childish behaviour really. Lourdes 00:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
That's a truly terrible idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the number of times we waste our community's efforts discussing this editor at ANI is truly terrible. And the allusions to movie lines as being his reason for misdirected humour, are childish. This editor doesn't have a long future at a project where we should commit to stop abusing. I'll probably ping you and offer my happy condolences when the editor's tenure finally ends here. Editors like this are simply not welcome. Lourdes 00:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I understand the principle of what you are saying, but you don't understand the particulars. Anyway, I doubt that it will have consensus. (And I'll be fighting like hell if anyone acts on it.) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
@Deleet: Interesting that you cite an AN3 report that I closed and told MPants to knock it off, so if anyone has a right to complain about civility in that report, it's me. What I see is that you tried to get MPants punished, and it didn't work, so you've turned up to this thread trying to get your pound of flesh back. I saw nothing blockable at Talk:Eugenics and neither did any other admin. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Shame on the editors minimizing/defending/making excuses for this behavior. ~Swarm~ {talk} 14:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Shame on you, Swarm for personalising what is already an-excessively personalised issue. If you think remarks such as that are in any way helpful... ——SerialNumber54129
  • Swarm, this's a way out of line comment. Please retract. WBGconverse 15:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Wow. Imagine being more offended by a generalized comment criticizing incivility apologists than by sexual violence. I kindly refer both of you to the quote at bottom of my userpage for my stance on what behavior is "out of line". ~Swarm~ {talk} 15:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanking you, Swarm; I am not referred anywhere. But I note that you do not see the paucity of casting shade on editors in the middle of a discussion about that very subject; indeed, doubling down on it with suggestions that they are also "sexual violence" apologists is hardly an improvement. ——SerialNumber54129 16:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
As you can see above, in the AN3 report linked by Deleet, I told MPants to just let things go and dial it back a bit. On his talk page I've advised him to resist the urge to retaliate. Yet I think kicking him off the project is a totally disproportionate response, and there's not been enough thought into what caused the outbursts in the first place. It is possible for a whole bunch of people to be wrong, to varying degrees. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't know why you're being so defensive regarding a simple, general comment that criticizes editors who are defending egregious behavior like casually invoking sexual violence. That's something that's actually offensive, protesting such behavior is not, at least, not from a policy perspective, and not from my basic standard of morality. Honestly, it's a little concerning that you see an equivalency between egregiously toxic and uncivil behavior and simply criticizing such behavior. I had always thought you to be more reasonable than that. ~Swarm~ {talk} 16:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support indef if not explicit from my earlier comments. The October 2018 ANI thread already had an extensive diff collection of astounding personal attacks which he promised to dial down but did not. The hostile attitude is well conceived with his talkpage edit notice. No one should have to deal with a person who's this abusive. Nowhere did MJP admit any wrong-doing in this ANI thread despite the violent sexual imagery which I think is pretty much unheard of in Wikipedia, and instead attacked the admin who placed a short block. This attitude and failure to change it is incompatible with building an encyclopedia. --Pudeo (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support indef block per Deleet. This isn't a one-off incident, or even a set of incidents. It's a long-term pattern of WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct.
Note that MJP's abusiveness is so ingrained that it is even in their editnotice, which is now up for deletion at WP:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:MjolnirPants/Editnotice, after an even more abusive editnotice was deleted last year. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose indef as completely disproportionate, no real opinion on this block. Guy (Help!) 15:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose any blocks at this time Walk a mile in MPants' shoes please. I haven't been blocked directly, but my local library was long-term blocked and I didn't want to log in, so I was prevented from improving the encyclopedia by a block. Yeah, I was pissed off about it and wrote a grumpy unblock request that was declined, making me even grumpier about it. A bit of empathy goes a long way. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Ritchie, you describe the situation as if MJP was blocked for some technicality and lashed out in shocked hurt.
      The reality is that this was an escalation of a long-term battleground approach. Yes, of course I empathise with MJP's clear need for improved anger management (or even for a few first steps on that path), but that doesn't alter the fact that en.wp has conduct policies which need toi be upheld for the sake of community health. We can't continue to indulge these systematic violations of core policy in the hope that MJP will develop anger-management skills which they have resisted for so long. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Let me try and give an example of how this has blown up. Consider the following statements, which superficially might appear to meet WP:CIVIL but are quite unpleasant : "I sincerely believe that there is strong scientific evidence that white people are biologically equipped to have a greater intellectual capacity than black people. For example, consider these citations : [a][b][c]". Or "I think there's been a noticeable anti-Brexit sentiment appearing on Twitter. Is it just me, or is anyone else getting this? Those who voted remain should just accept a democratic result and stop being annoying. Britain is a white country and we are Christians. No deal!" Those aren't actual comments, but an example, although they are broadly based on real things I've seen on social media. I think my point holds - we really need to look at the underlying circumstances calmly and carefully. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse block but oppose indef mostly per Dlohcierekim. GABgab 15:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support indef If this is an example of his learning his lesson [[19]], seriously?Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
    Your comment is a demonstration of the point he is trying to make. Nihlus 16:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
How, that post is a massive PA against both a specific user and unnamed users (also outing, what are all those external links, they are not showing any edits here that would be problematic, what a user does off wiki is irrelevant). If he does not have the patience to deal with POV pushers, then this is not going to go away. Thus we will be back here the next time he decides to "not have patience", and we will go thorough this whole circus again, an indef prevents that (and that is what blocks are for, prevention). Just how many violations can you cram into one post?, it look deliberate.Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
FFS I did not follow those exlinks. If it is outing, then that does require and indef and those exlinks need revdel. Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
They have been redacted for that very reason.Slatersteven (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Well MJP's comment was shockingly unhelpful/unpromising/uninsghtfull. Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Way out of line for the offense. PackMecEng (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose further action as it's clear from certain sets of comments both above and below that everyone has become too emotionally involved in this, myself included (see below), to make objective judgements. But MjolnirPants ought to consider this their super-ultra-final warning, boss mode bonus round: to put it simply, another incident like this and you'll be gone, and it's entirely on you to not let that happen. If you're being harassed, see WP:DWH, and ask for help. (edit conflict) I also think there are too many editors commenting here who still have swastikas displayed on their user pages. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support indef A couple of thousand article edits compared to 13,500 talk and WP is a lot of arguing. Leaky caldron (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • While I was writing my comment above, MjolnirPants wrote a bunch of grossly inappropriate things on their talk page which require oversight, and I have blocked them indefinitely. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
    It's funny what happens when multiple people over-personalize an issue, constantly badger someone, make ridiculous and unwarranted blocks, and continue to pile on before the user has even returned. This whole charade is disgraceful. Nihlus 16:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

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

MjolnirPants:Request for specific remedies[edit]

Closed per above. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What exactly do we need from MjolnirPants going forward? I mean, we’ve all applauded Cullen for blocking, but what next? I say no more sexually violent imagery. That using “fuck” to me indicates loss of self control, I would ask MjolnirPants to step back and not respond when angry. Yep, I see a lot of anger referenced in the earlier thread. (I am not talking about the word '’per se’’, but the anger it represents). And, pray to whatever god you worship we don’t meet in real life? Really? As Cullen put it, “By far the best way to deal with trolls is to deny them the attention that they seek.” And my way of dealing with trolls, as I mentioned-- I'd have probably just thanked the other for their thoughts and let it go. I guess that’s the point-- don’t rise to the bait; let it go. Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Personally, I am inclined to say that there is no further need for action at this moment in time. Mjolnir already received a sanction for the immediately relevant conduct. I suppose we could enter a "no sexually violent language" statement into a formal close, but that almost seems to be suggesting that such a prohibition is particular to MP, while such statements are in reality always inappropriate for this project and should be met with immediate community action--so it seems rather redundant. Besides which, the previous ANI already included a statement in the close that MP is warned that any kind of violent language is inappropriate on this project and likely to result in a block the next time he used it. Although I think Cullen may have been unaware of that prior discussion, that is exactly what occurred here and so the community's resolution on that matter has been satisfied. Had the circumstances here been even just a little more different, I may very well have supported an proposal for a longer-term block. And make no mistake, I am very concerned about MP's WP:IDHT-heavy response to the block on his talk page and worry it won't be too long before we have to undertake another discussion, especially considering that MP landed here at ANI again very shortly after his previous (self-requested) block following the previous ANI.
But under the circumstances (ballsy provocation by a WP:NOTHERE editor and Mjolnir already sitting out a block for his comment, albeit a short one), I am not inclined to support further action at this time. I think if a formal close is given any teeth, it should be only to extent of making a clear statement that Mjolnir is being given WP:ROPE here but that such indulgence is almost expended and that further demonstrations of an inability to not escalate personal disputes will be met with further blocks which are to increase in duration from here--particularly where they involve violent or threatening language. Mjolnir does indeed need to accept once and for all that this is a work environment and that nobody should be subject to such language whether it is said as the result of an effort at intimidation or a loss of temper. But again, for the present situation and conduct, I think Cullen already established the community response and that matters should be dropped here in the hope that this will be the end of this behaviour. Given the attention this pattern has received thus far, I suspect the next occurrence, if any, will result in a lengthier block, which would be appropriate. Snow let's rap 02:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
@Snow Rise: I think that would work right there. I think @MjolnirPants: needs some specific guidance to avoid . . . problems. Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Something I'd like to see addressed, that was brought up in an earlier ANI report, is MjolnirPants' habit of removing his opponents' talk page posts. The earlier report included a warning about this behavior from Ritchie333 [20] [21] along with three more examples of talk page removals from shortly after the warning. [22] [23] [24] Here are two current examples from a few days ago. [25] [26] The comments that he removed may have been clueless, but none of them clearly violated talk page guidelines, so these removing these other editors' posts is WP:OWNERSHIP behavior. 2601:42:800:A9DB:C9FC:9DE6:44A6:6E5A (talk) 03:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
    WP:OWNTALK. Nihlus 03:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
    That is absolutely a non issue. Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Did you look at the diffs? The posts that he removed weren't in his user talk, they were posts on article talk pages. 2601:42:800:A9DB:C9FC:9DE6:44A6:6E5A (talk) 03:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't see anything really wrong with those removals. WP:NOTFORUM applies as well. Nihlus 03:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM does not apply to any of those edits--they all concern policy, content, and editorial issues. I'm not saying that they are great arguments, and it won't benefit us much to dig into the context much here, because whether they are right- or wrong-headed is not really particularly relevant: the IP (whoever they are...) is correct in at least this much: WP:TPG allows for the removal of another editor's comments under only very particular and narrow circumstances, none of which are satisfied in these examples, as far as I can tell. MP definitely needs to cease that habit immediately. It's a somewhat separate issue from the one we were previously discussing here and I really hope to not have a subthread develop concerning it here, but it would be cause for a separate ANI complaint at the least if it continues; editors are not allowed to sanitize talk pages of comments they don't like unless they are disruptive with no editorial value, and other than maybe this one, that test does not apply to any of the examples the IP listed. Snow let's rap 04:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Snow Rise, I disagree on your personal interpretation of the policy and how it applies here as the policy is ambiguous in many areas. While it would be in MjolnirPants' best interest to err on the side of caution, I see nothing here that shows it is a clear violation of policy. Nonetheless, I'm not really invested enough in this to discuss it further than I already have. Nihlus 04:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
The relevant policy language is at WP:TPO, which outlines the very small handful of situations in which removing another editor's comments are allowed, none of which were at play in the diffs the IP provided. Again, I think it would be just as well if we can avoid opening that can of worms here, in this discussion, but to the extent you're insisting again that these removals are not a problem, I have to point out that they are in fact against policy, and not just "in my interpretation" or that of anyone else who has commented as to this habit; take a look for yourself and then tell me which exception to the otherwise outright prohibition you think applies if you really want to insist MP was free and clear to remove in the context of those diffs. Otherwise, I suggest we just drop it for the sake of keeping this discussion as focused as we may under the circumstances. Snow let's rap 04:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • As mentioned above by me and Swarm above, we've repeatedly seen Pants pulling down other editors using inarguably abusive language. We've asked Pants in the past to come clean and stop behaving like this, but he has repeatedly continued this. I would propose the current block be made an indef block till Pants gives an unequivocal statement that he will stop using double entendres and abusive language, broadly construed. Lourdes 03:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
    A ban on double entendres coming from someone who uses the phrase "Pants pulling down" in the same contribution? I don't think so. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I would suggest an extremely broad topic ban on sexually violent imagery in discussion, with known heavy sanctions for breaking it. I don't think this includes the word "fuck" or variations of it, but, you know, rape imagery is bad, mmmkay.--Jorm (talk) 03:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
    Adding absolute TBAN on removing other people's talk page comments, regardless of any possible reason to do so. This user sounds over wrought. May need a rest. Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yep, the problem appears to be, quite simply, a straightforward lack of regard for the fourth pillar. "Civility sanctions" are silly, because they're redundant to existing policy. The most obvious solution is to extend the block to indefinite and unblock as soon as the user makes a commitment to changing their attitude. If we don't, the block will expire, and we'll just be back here down the line again. ~Swarm~ {talk} 04:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
    Egad! has anyone seen the edit notice on his talk page. That needs to go too, though it seems to be yet another attitude adjustment requirement issue indicator. Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) Looking at the lede of his user page, he unapologetically WP:DGAF, admits to being uncivil, and we can pound sand if we don't like it. All of that is consistent with his actions. I see no reason to believe that, even if offered, a promise to change his attitude or actions would be sincere, let alone be something which he would actually fulfill. I don't want to have to run into this guy on a dark article or talk page somewhere, and neither should anyone else (especially newbies). We have a right to expect civil, collegial discourse. The obscenity that spews forth from this user's mind simply has no place here. "Society has a right to protect itself." —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I thought he already has a "never be uncivil" restriction in place? (Note I have been (and am currently) in dispute with this user on a regular basis, and have been on the receiving end more then once of his attitude problems). As such I am sure about supporting an indef (I am hardly neutral). I support the idea of a ban on removing other users talk page posts (he can always ask someone one if they are genuinely a problem. Maybe the answer is to make it "no offensive or abusive language, be polite and respectful AT ALL times", thought I suspect he will find a way to wikilawyer around even that.Slatersteven (talk) 08:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • It's not "anger", it's typing words on a keyboard. If MP was actually angry he wouldn't be composing perfectly-spelled and coherent screeds of fucks and dildos. What it is is showing off. It betrays an absence of understanding (or, worse, caring) that the Wikipedia username you're directing this stuff at in order to show how Internet Bad Ass you are is another human being. My concern is that just a few months ago, MP pledged to change his ways, agreeing to "treat fellow editors with respect", and just four months later - most of which he was on a self-imposed break! - we're right back where we were with him. The next infraction must result in a lengthy, lengthy block. It's not acceptable to speak to other people like this in a collaborative environment, whether you agree with them or not, whether you are upset or not; there's no justification. None. Had I been the blocking admin it would have been a far longer block than Cullen imposed. Fish+Karate 09:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
The Great Dlohcini-- sees all; tells all. Dlohcierekim (talk)
    • It's not "anger" .... That's mind-reading. No one but MPants knows his state of mind/emotions when doing something. It is however something that is controllable. Anyone who writes coherent content for an encyclopedia is by definition capable of communicating in clear, neutral, impersonal terms. This can even be done when communicating with trolls or other exasperating people. It may take practice and even some form(s) of behavior-modification like stepping away from the keyboard when needed, but it is something that's required on Wikipedia, and something MPants had promised to change. Softlavender (talk) 09:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
      • I stand by my view that it's showing off, not anger. The benevolently chortling it off as "oh dear, look what MPants has said now, sometimes he says the things I wish I could say, what a rascal! Please don't do it again let's go back to editing with no further actions" attitude some editors and admins show to this sort of behaviour exacerbates this acting to the gallery and encourages further pushing of the envelope. Fish+Karate 11:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I suggest that all the problems comes under the heading of WP:BATTLEGROUND. MJP repeatedly takes a confrontational, personalised approach to disagreements, and often sets out to "prove" that his "opponents" are mad+bad. He has a systemic unwillingness to consider that there may be more than one way of looking at things, or that he himself may be mistake.
If he'd drop the battleground approach and commit himself to collaboration, then the specific behavioural issues would follow.
Conversely, if he retains his the battleground approach, then lists of unacceptable conduct are merely going to displace the problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
"take practice and even some form(s) of behavior-modification"-- Yes. Yes it does. If I can do it, anyone can Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • A number of comments above appear to be referencing my close of a previous discussion as a warning against incivility. I want to be very clear that it was not, it was a pledge by MjolnirPants to be more respectful of editors with differing viewpoints, and in the same discussion I somewhat endorsed aggressive treatment of overt racists. The only warning I wrote in that discussion was this: "this ("pray to whatever deity you worship that we never meet in person") is a direct threat of violence, and I don't care about context or emotion or whatever else, or whether or not you think you intended it to be read this way, if I see you write something like this again I will block you, and it will be for a good long time." I've already commented that I don't think this incident is a "direct threat of violence" though it certainly describes a violent act. I agree that we shouldn't need to warn editors not to respond to confrontation with descriptions of violent sexual acts, and at the same time I agree that we should do so in this case since MjolnirPants doesn't seem able to draw that line for themselves. However, I oppose any restriction against using the word "fuck", and I oppose any restriction that is generally worded as to prevent MjolnirPants ridiculing overt racists in ways that do not describe violence. (Racism itself is violence, but there is no need to respond in kind.) Frankly if racists don't edit Wikipedia because they fear abuse from editors like MjolnirPants, that's a good thing. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
If MJP was reserving his abusiveness for racists, then you might have a point. But he isn't.
And in any case, there are plenty of ways of dealing with racists without being abusive. There's no need for other editors to reduce themselves to that level, unless they share MJP's battleground approach. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Let's wait and see if the problem persists after the obvious WP:NOTHERE trolls are removed from the equation. Guy (Help!) 15:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
It has almost as soon as his block ended [[27]], what possible justification is there for this?Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

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

60 hour block[edit]

Closing as MJP has since been unblocked, No point in this dragging out further, –Davey2010Talk 13:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am not happy about BrownHairedGirl dropping a 60 hour block on MPants immediately after his previous block expired. While some people support a block above, there is nothing like a consensus for it, and unless anyone has got any good objections, I plan to unblock sometime this afternoon. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, if the point is to drive him away, an immediate re-block would seem quite effective. If the point is to temper his language, I hardly think a re-block would be the optimal path. O3000 (talk) 12:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Per the comments on his talk, I have lifted the block per WP:ROPE. Let's see if the sweary personal attack stuff stops; if not a reblock will be in order. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
And people wonder why MJP uses foul language. Hope he takes the message to heart. It should be coming through loud and clear. Again. First time blocked. If he learns, we are done. He escalates, the blocks escalate. Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

So far there have been two messy ANI threads with fighting over who gets to close them, different interpretations with no real solution and one WP:CENT-advertised civility RfC with no clear result. To be completely open, I'm thinking there might be enough failed dispute resolution for an Arbitration request at this point. The only reason I did not file RFAR yet is because Cullen328 issued the 31 hrs block so there actually was some kind of an action. But with the unblock request and new block being issued and unturned, it seems to be unconclusive again with no clear indication what would happen next if the F bombs continue. --Pudeo (talk) 13:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

You are stirring a quiet pot. O3000 (talk) 13:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
@Pudeo: Historically, "fuck" is not actionable here. Perhaps unfortunately. Even WP:civil makes note of that. And I'm sure we can count on you to provoke MJP whenever you can. potted beef? Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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


(non-admin closure)
Woolen or cotton
These belong only on feet
Begone, naughty sock!
Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 01:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Despite multiple attempts to engage in conversation with User: BF93 on their talk page and the Signature Bank article talk page, they keep reverting updates made without explanation. They've indicated, in the comments tied to their edit history, that they feel the bank is "removing negative facts/truths" from the article, but this is untrue. The edits in question are not being made by the bank and I'm not removing any negative information - simply removing redundant information and trying to better organize the existing information. You can see a list of the most recent proposed edits on the article's talk page. I've attempted a WP:30 filing, but that was declined due to the fact the user will not engage in conversation with myself or other moderators. What're our next steps? Welltraveled (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

They’ve not edited since the 20th of Feb and edit infrequently. Blocked twice for edit warring by EdJohnston. I warned them that they must respond to the ANI thread before editing further. Both BF93 and Welltraveled have been slow motion edit warring. BF93 has spurned requests to discuss. Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
User: BF93 sock blocked. Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Large rangeblock needed for Guatemala vandal[edit]

/48 rangeblocked for 6 months. Fish+Karate 15:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There's a persistent date-changing vandal from Guatemala described at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/ who has been active since November 2017 in the range Special:Contributions/2803:7000:0:0:0:0:0:0/32

Since this vandal is the only one using the /32 range for the last 15 months I would like the whole /32 blocked for a long time. Can that happen? HJ Mitchell blocked the /32 for two weeks but that was two weeks ago, and disruption has resumed. Previous rangeblocks listed below. Binksternet (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Dl’oh-nuts! Dlohcierekim (talk)
D'loh! [FBDB] Jip Orlando (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
@Dlohcierekim: - that's almost Stocks worthy! Nosebagbear (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
@Dlohcierekim: I grabbed the list of contribs for 2803:7000/32 and played with it a bit. Of 2336 contribs dating back to 2016-11-24, all but 146 are in the 2803:7000:4800/48. Most of those outside that range are old. The ones that are within the last few months don't really fit the pattern, though some are undesirable as well. I suggest tightening the range to the /48. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Unsure if there are actually any good edits from the /32 since 1 January. But whatever rangeblock is chosen might have to be in place for more than a week. Scanning all the edits from the /32 since 1 January I only found this edit which is not an edit of a song article. But this one is vandalism as well. My guess is that *all* the edits of song articles are by the same guy and are worthy of blocking. Suggest that the one week block might need to be extended up to a month. The same guy has been active since 2013 according to the LTA case. EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks y’all, soft block /32 1 month. Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I blocked the /48 for 6 months - as far as I can see every single contribution on that range is them, and they've been at that for more than 2 years - Dlohcierekim I've modified the /32 to display {{rangeblock}}; I have to agree with AlanM1 that I don't think the /32 rangeblock is necessary - every edit that is in the /48 appears to be the LTA and every edit outside doesn't, so a /48 range block accomplishes the same without blocking other users (although 495 of the last 500 edits from the /32 range are from the /48). Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Block request[edit]

Closed as bot blocked. –Davey2010Talk 22:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Per a request at WP:ANRFC, I have closed Help talk:Citation Style 1#RFC on publisher and location in cite journal, which concerns the actions of Citation bot. Since the operator (Smith609) has not edited in almost 2 weeks, it is requested that the bot be blocked until it is compliant with the result of the RfC. --DannyS712 (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Sandstein 20:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Relatedly, see Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested/Archive_12#CiteSeerX and Citation bot for an unrelated but also problematic behavior of the bot and its maintainer. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox medical condition[edit]

The issue has been resolved and no administrative action is required here. Mistakes happen; communication and proper processes break down, connections get severed, and things break... it happens. As far as a discussion and action on this noticeboard goes: Just let this be a lesson to those involved (as well as anyone out there) that moving any live templates, modules, scripts, or other transcluded pages must follow a wide outreach and communication along with very careful planning and pre-rollout steps first so that deployments and changes like this go forward smoothly and with as little disruption as possible to the project. Anyone considering executing a page move with a template or other page should look at the "What links here" link and look at the number of transclusions as a first step. If it has a high transclusion count and to many pages, that's a red flag to say, "No - this needs to be discussed and planned carefully first." :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Prior to today, we had a long-established template called Template:Infobox medical condition and a more modern version called Template:Infobox medical condition (new), which works in conjunction with Template:Medical resources. To a first approximation, the contents of {{Infobox medical condition}} were split between {{Infobox medical condition (new)}} and {{Medical resources}}.

Following an undiscussed request for move by Zackmann08, Template:Infobox medical condition was moved to Template:Infobox medical condition (old); and Template:Infobox medical condition (new) was moved to Template:Infobox medical condition by JJMC89, although can see no trace of the corresponding talk page archives being moved. Maybe that's just how it shows in the log. Later today, Doc James moved Template:Infobox medical condition back to Template:Infobox medical condition (new).

The situation now is that we have three templates, but both Template:Infobox medical condition (old) and Template:Infobox medical condition are redirects to Template:Infobox medical condition (new). So the original template has disappeared completely without discussion. However, Template talk:Infobox medical condition (old) exists, but Template talk:Infobox medical condition redirects to Template talk:Infobox medical condition (new). The talk page archives are now at Template talk:Infobox medical condition (old)/Archive 1,2,3,4 and Template talk:Infobox medical condition (new)/Archive 1. Could we please rationalise this and actually get some discussion on the steps necessary to deprecate the original template? Thanks, --RexxS (talk) 22:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Uh what is this doing on the incident noticeboard? What misconduct are you asserting? Also if you are asserting misconduct by me, you have failed to notify me which you are required to do. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
So the issues with removing the "new" from the template name is that it breaks all the wikidata inter language links. This confuses the content translation tool such that it no longer can use the "new".
Content translation / wikidata inter language links have trouble with redirects. A trouble that should be fixed but one that I do not have the ability to fix.
Thus I have moved the template back to the "new" name. I and a number of others have deprecated the remaining instances of the "old" template such that it is no longer used in main space. So IMO it makes sense to redirect the "old" one to the "mew" one to discourage people from using it going forwards.
I do not think we have any misconduct here. Simple that all the issues need to be dealt with before doing such a move. And the move was made without taking these issues into account. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@Zackmann08: I'll just direct you to the notice at the top of this board: "This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." My post has nothing to do with behaviour or individuals. It's merely a problem that requires administrative attention. You were pinged as a matter of courtesy, but I have not started a discussion about you and there is no requirement to notify you. Is that clear enough?
@Doc James: This board is used for more that just behavioural problems. If you believe it's okay to delete an unused template without discussion, who am I to disagree? However, it leaves us in a position that it is no longer obvious where to find talk page discussions or file histories. Having studied what went wrong, I suggest that if you want to fix it, an admin will need to move Template:Infobox medical condition (old) and its subpages over Template:Infobox medical condition without leaving a redirect