Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive995

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

General Elections in the Donetsk People's Republic (2014)[edit]

General Elections in the Donetsk People's Republic (2014) has the same issues as Protests in Armenia (2018), which were discussed a few days ago, here. The article is unreadable and should not be made visible in this state. I attempted earlier to reach out to the user and help with formatting, but have not been able to start a discussion (nor have others); I'll try again now. Per that earlier thread, the errors seem to be the result of machine translation. This is far beyond my abilities (translation/linguistics/patience-wise), but I thought I should report it. Thank you, Jessicapierce (talk) 19:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

There is an existing article, Donbass general elections, 2014. It dealt with both the DPR and LPR elections at the time they took place. It was deemed sensible to keep them together. The new article should be merged back into the old one, which I've now done. RGloucester 20:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
That fixes that article, but I have come to wonder whether Панн has difficulty with English. I have asked on his user talk. His global contributions and user talk page posts here suggest that Russian is his primary language. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Same situation, different article (let me know if I should start a new thread, but I thought it might be helpful to group the info): please see this version of Eduard Basurin, with Панн's recent additions. Runawayangel has just removed most of the article, which I fully support, because the previous version was unreadable. The situation has therefore been dealt with, but it's an ongoing issue that Панн is submitting content like this. Jessicapierce (talk) 19:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
I would just like to bring attention to this page he has created, which seems to be confusing two different people. --Runawayangel (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
There seems to be at least one more article with the same issue. [1] --Runawayangel (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
The Alexander Ananchenko article cites a reference in an edit summary without actually footnoting it in the text, so something odd is going on; but I suspect the wrong name in the text came from using another article as a template and forgetting to change it. This also doesn't seem to be an uncredited translation from another Wikipedia article; on the contrary, the Polish Wikipedia article seems to be derived from it. However, he has continued to edit without either responding here or answering anyone on his user talk, and if he does have serious problems with English, that's a serious competency issue. (His history on Commons and on ru.wikipedia both are also concerning; both have blocked him as a copyright violator; but he appears to be doing different things here.) So I'm going to ping in Ymblanter, the only Russian-speaking admin I can think of, in hopes he can talk with Панн. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I left a message at their homepage, I do not know whether it is going to help but at least then we have tried everything.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: We still have problems. Since you left your message, the editor has added machine translated text to Alexander Ananchenko, probably from the Polish Wikipedia article, which they cleaned up only minimally; here's what I had to do a day later to make it readable. They've also yet again uploaded a film poster at too high a resolution, and have also uploaded another file with a possibly poor fair use rationale; granted, I have no idea myself how to reduce the resolution of a file, which is why I avoid uploading posters, and I would not know how to write a good fair use rationale for a screenshot, but they've been told about excessively high resolution many times and have yet to ask for help from you or anyone else, just as they have not made any statement here. Perhaps the next step is an ultimatum to stop machine translating and an explanation of how to reduce resolution? @Панн: you need to talk to us, either on your talk page or here. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Added a note at their talk page which I hope should be pretty clear.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Refdesk vandal[edit]

Hi, the refdesk vandal is active again (Wikipedia:Reference_desk subpages). Can someone clean it up? Thanks, HenryFlower 09:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

All reverted Abelmoschus Esculentus 09:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
The vandal (bot?) somehow managed to reach autoconfirmed status before this latest spree. Do we need to increase the protection level of the Refdesks? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it's pretty obvious this ongoing disruption is not being solved. It would be a good idea to prevent the same user posting material more than once per minute or two as well. Just fix that up for us, it's destroying my watchlist all this nonsense, particularly when admins don't work Sundays.... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
I am upgrading to extended confirmed, help will be appreciated,. I hope though that they are going to exhaust all the extended confirmed socks soon.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Actually, it looks like they did, pls post here if disruption reappears.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
They had one more ec sock, and six of the subpages have been extended-confirmed protected for 4 days.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks all. I'm a little out of practice with this sort of thing. HenryFlower 09:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
A similar pattern of vandalism has occured at various Village Pump pages. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Pinging Zzuuzz, might have something to add. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Some significant differences, not convinced, says I. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Don't answer this if it reveals too much, but are we talking about more outing attacks on a particular editor? Or is this something new? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
He's vandalizing the Help Desk and Teahouse too. He is really overwhelming our anti-vandalism network. funplussmart (talk) 12:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Really? In all my years here, overwhelming the anti-vandalism network is something I've never heard of being possible, much less having happened.  Swarm  talk  20:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Particularly vitriolic LTAs consistently attempt to do so. I remember when JarlaxleArtemis was more active as his "Grawp" persona that he constantly attempted to recruit 4chan members to hassle random articles, specifically to try and overwhelm us; fewer and fewer people actually took him up on his offer, however. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 22:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I read the LTA page on JarlaxleArtemis. It seems to be a very similar situation here: Use of proxies, posting of personal infromation, repeated attacks. funplussmart (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I mean that this vandalism is forcing us to protect pages (like the Ref Desk and Help Desk) that anons and new users have a need to edit. And so far he has managed to get around edit filters and all other means to stop this. Page Protection is a last resort in many cases, and this guy has forced to 30-500 several essential pages for inexperienced users at this point. I mean we can stop the disruption from this specific vandal, but only if we take actions that cause a lot of collateral damage. I hope that this guy will get tired of this soon, but so far he has shown no signs of stopping. funplussmart (talk) 22:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Guy Macon Yes, it's the same. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia being open to all, if you work on building the encyclopedia for any length of time, you have the possibility of attracting your own personal stalker who considers pretty much anything you do a personal affront, and who considers it their sacred duty to "expose" the person they fixate on. It's really quite pathetic, but for some reason they just can't quite seem to figure out why no one else sees their actions as heroic. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

User randomly reverting my previous edits.[edit]

Temporary rangeblock applied; alert Bishonen or Ivanvector if problems persist. (non-admin closure) Softlavender (talk) 06:33, 27 October 2018 (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 user 2A02:A31B:8444:A800:B4B3:713A:BFB4:B995 who keeps reverting an edit I've made to the page on Heaton Moor, ignoring my contribution to the Talk page, and has now taken to randomly reverting edits I've made to other pages. Who should I report this to, and how do I get him to stop the intimidation? Thanks.

C0pernicus (talk) 13:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

It does rather look like stalking. But it is a new account, so it may just be (an odd) coincidence. More likely (given the time frame) is an account you have had interaction with in the past.Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

It's a new user that only ever reverts things, and it's already gone over 3RR on one article from the looks of things. Malfunctioning bot?Simonm223 (talk) 16:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

However you should have properly informed them of this ANI.Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. What's the prescribed format for informing them? C0pernicus (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
See the text in red in the blue box at the top of this page. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Dealt with now, I informed them.Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Upon second look it does possibly seem retaliatory. See the edit history of 2a02:a31b:8444:a800:514d:b5dd:6b18:2486. Simonm223 (talk) 16:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
It's kind of useless to notify IPv6 editors, they generally rapidly switch between addresses on a /64 CIDR so pinging them on any one of the addresses has about a one in 18 pentillion chance of notifying the right user. This one, 2A02:A31B:8444:A800:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), seems to only revert except when they're vandalizing, and has been specifically reverting C0pernicus since about the end of August, and while it's mostly occurring on Manchester-related topics they're also following editors to completely unrelated pages like fricative consonant. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Range blocked 31 hours for disruptive editing. They're clearly reverting indiscriminately, reverting edits as old as March, and never with an edit summary. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • It's apparently a long-term problem, so a 31-hour block of the range is rather short. We'll hope it helps, but, @C0pernicus: if IPs beginning with 2A02:A31B:8444:A800 continue to stalk you after the block expires, feel free to come back here, or to tell me directly on my page. Or perhaps tell you, Ivanvector? Bishonen | talk 21:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC).
Many thanks, it's useful to know who to turn to. C0pernicus (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2018 (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.

Multiple IPs attacking Pixels[edit]

(non-admin closure) IP range blocked. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:45, 27 October 2018 (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.

First, I'm unsure on where else to specifically mention this but I believe it needs some attention. I've noticed a range of similar IPs edit the Pixel 3 page. I would say the issue is more of going against NPOV than vandalism. The following is the list of IP addresses:

List of IPs

Examples would be [2], [3], [4], [5] (this actually was an ok action but still the generic edit summary), [6] (revert on anything that is not a criticism). I'm unsure on how to proceed after the page protection ends. It seems to be the same user for these edits but I think the ISP gives a different IP address every few days (or even hours) which just prevents any warnings. {{uw-multipleIPs}} only points to vandalism which isn't the case here. – The Grid (talk) 20:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I've anon-blocked the /24 range. They are able to rapidly cycle through IPs and are IP hopping which won't work. They are the editor that made multiple reverts on WebGUI. Other editors have tried to leave messages on nine talk pages but they don't respond to them. Editors don't need to keep trying to chase them down. They can get an account or find a way to stop IP hopping.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you so much for looking into it and providing info about the IP range. – The Grid (talk) 22:25, 26 October 2018 (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.

Santanu99: persistent disruptive editing, and obvious lack of competence[edit]

User and sock blocked. (non-admin closure) Softlavender (talk) 06:25, 27 October 2018 (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.

Santanu99 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)
The reported user, whose main activity here is scr*wing up articles about Indian institutions of higher learning, should be shown the door ASAP, and not just for a short period of time, but for good, for being a huge time sink, and a net negative for the project. Their talk page is full of warnings for uploading non-free images, making copyright violations (adding copyrighted text found elsewhere; see revdelled entries in their contributions, and recent multiple warnings on their talk page), making repeated cut-and-paste moves of articles, making repeated attempts to redirect an article to another article that only covers a subset of what the article they're redirecting to it covers (see page history here) and repeatedly adding unsourced material to a large number of articles. It's also obvious that they don't know enough English to be able to read and understand the warnings they get, or communicate with others, with their response to getting a final warning for disruptive editing after their latest attempt to redirect Indian Institutes of Engineering Science and Technology to Indian Institute of Engineering Science and Technology, Shibpur (their second such attempt today, showing they just won't stop...) being this post on their talk page: "GOTO Hell, Lets Try..You have no idea.Wikipedia Foundation will loose fund.", which IMHO proves my point about utter lack of competence. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 11:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Tom, your quote ""GOTO Hell" etc has the wrong diff, could you fix, please? I'd like to read the post, even though it may be kind of moot, as I've indeffed. Bishonen | talk 15:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC).
Sorry, Bishonen, too many windows open in the browser at the same time. The diff is here. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 15:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes (brought he from their talk, having just left a message there and seen an absolute kaleidoscope of warnings). I see some of them relate to the addition of copyright material; that's what took me there, as I stripped a load out of Indian Institute of Engineering Science and Technology, Shibpur, which they have proceeded to restore. I wonder how many wasted editorial hours they have managed to consume in the last five years. ——SerialNumber54129 14:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
The account was registered five years ago, but only made stray edits until early July this year, that is less than four months ago, but have since accumulated about 1,000 edits here, very few of them really constructive. A look at their earliest edits, from 2014 and 2015, is interesting too, though, since several of their earliest edits have been revdelled, including their very first ones, making it seem like they've been regularly adding copyvios here, from their very first day of editing here and up to today. Kazi Nazrul University, which they added now revdelled copyvios on a couple of days ago, was also the very first article they edited, with now revdelled edits made by them on that article also in 2014 and 2015, showing they haven't learnt anything during the past several years. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 15:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Santanu98 also now blocked. GiantSnowman 16:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • It wasn't registered? They just tried to redirect their talk to a non-existant page. Which does just about sum it up admittedly. Ah, TW's dodgy spelling there :) yes, that was a rather foolish manoeuvre, wasn't it. ——SerialNumber54129 16:28, 23 October 2018 (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.

Ad hominem at homonym[edit]

Alright. It was fun while it lasted. Return to this space next April 1 for a real good time. --Jayron32 17:06, 26 October 2018 (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 fill this space with a relevant humorous image of your choice. BMK (Sorry, trout was trite) BMK
Add hominid at "Ad hominem at homonym", at home with them
Homina, homina, homina
Hominy, hominy, hominy
Hominy home
Harmony, harmony, harmony
Homily, homily
homily
Did someone say tripe?
This whole homonym thing is a fluke.


[7]. EEng 18:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

An ad homonym? erm, no, what I meant to say is: We are very busy here doing very important things. We have no time for frivolity. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Seriously, Eeng. Look at the thread above this one and ask yourself if we really have time for this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
When I saw this pop up, my question was going to be "Really? Did Eeng put you up to this? Otta known I have plenty of time for frivolity, and maybe some fishing...-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Damn you EEng! Damn you. We don't have time for this. We. Don't. Have. TIME. This post has wasted precious volunteer resources, and frankly, I'm not sure how long it will take to recover. Every minute people spend here, precious, precious work is being done, and you have stolen that from us. Propose BOOMERANG TBAN on the use of any and all humor, broadly construed.  Swarm  talk  19:58, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

How about this? SemiHypercube 20:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, this is kind of a reminder to close this thread. I've outdone EEng with puns on this one. SemiHypercube 20:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • This thread is succeeding beyond my wildest imagining. EEng 21:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Your imagination is obviously deficient, so sad, so sad. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
A mind is a terrible thing to... wait, what are we talking about again? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
???????????????💵Money💵emoji💵💸 01:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
As one of the late 20th century's greatest philosophers put it, "What a waste it is to lose one's mind." Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

What's this about hominy? power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I hereby block the electrical engineer for a microsecond. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:47, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
On what charge? Battery? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
If convicted I hope they put me in a dry cell. EEng 18:56, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
If they do, quite a few admins will get a charge out of it. Atsme✍🏻📧 01:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry, watt are we talking about? Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Ohm my! Resistance is futile. You're impeding discussion. etc etc etc. What have I started? EEng 16:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I dunno, but I just saw a Volts Wagon Beetle pulling a mobile ohm. Atsme✍🏻📧 22:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Personally I prefer the bus, if I don't have to make too many connections. EEng 00:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
I amp not sure where this discussion is going. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Do we have a current consensus? Blackmane (talk) 10:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
<weeps quietly> EEng 17:04, 26 October 2018 (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:MjolnirPants[edit]

OP indef blocked by Bbb23. (non-admin closure) Softlavender (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2018 (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 have removed contentious BLP claims that the subject of the article is inspired by neo-nazis and white nationalists [[8]]. The specific line of which did not have any WP:V link at all and is unsupported by the body of the article. While there is no doubt that the subject communicated with such individuals to ask them what they thought, that doesn't mean he was inspired by them. When questioned about it, a source was given, but I do not believe that the source actually says what is being claimed, that this is at best an analysis of that source. As such, per WP:BLPREMOVE, we are required to Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: (1)is unsourced or poorly sourced; (2) is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources (see No original research). Two minutes after I removed the text, explicitly invoking BLP and asking for consensus to restore per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, User:MjolnirPants used his rollback rights to revert my edits.[9] This is an inappropriate use of the rollback permissions which should not be used to revert good faith edits. Additionally this material was restored in violation of WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE without consensus that it is validly sourced. Debate on if this is validly sourced is currently ongoing at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Milo_Yiannopoulos. -Obsidi (talk) 15:00, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

As this is a content dispute your next step is WP:DR not ANI. MarnetteD|Talk 15:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
This isn't about whether the text should be added or removed, but the behavior of restoring the text without consensus and the abuse of rollback rights, both of which are appropriate for ANI to consider. He has now written a response on the talk page: Read WP:CRYBLP and either provide reliable sources disputing the claim, which has been thoroughly sourced already or fuck off. Seriously, dude, you're begging for an ANI report, and you're going to get one soon with this tendentiousness. [10] -Obsidi (talk) 15:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
It's still not an issue for ANI, which is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. If he is edit-warring, warn him on usertalk and report at WP:ANEW. If he is violating DS or GS, warn him on usertalk and report at WP:AE. If you feel it is a BLP issue, then ask/report at WP:BLPN. If it's a verification issue, then ask/report at WP:RSN. If it's anything else, discuss on articletalk and see what the consensus is, and if you don't like the consensus, then utilize some form of WP:DR. One/two edits is not a sufficient reason to open an ANI thread, because as MarnetteD stated, it's just a content dispute, and one lousy use of rollback (which is not sanctionable for one instance). Softlavender (talk) 15:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I cannot warn him on usertalk as he has banned me from his talk page. This is already on WP:BLPN. I would revert him, but then I will get accused of edit warring (so far I have only reverted once), see below here Writ Keeper is already saying I am edit warring with only one revert so far. -Obsidi (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, you can. Usertalk bans do not apply to mandatory warnings and notifications, which WP:ANEW warnings are, just like the usertalk notification you just gave him for this thread: [11]. -- Softlavender (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
"This is already on WP:BLPN." So you admit you are forum-shopping, apparently specifically to either/both (1) get MjolnirPants in trouble for a single edit (or at most two edits) (2) get your way – in a content dispute which is already being discussed extensively both on the article's talk page and at BLPN? Softlavender (talk) 16:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I admit nothing of the kind. I came here to discuss conduct issues, not the content of the article which will be decided by BLPN, not here. -Obsidi (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Then I refer you to this: [12]. -- Softlavender (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
You're missing some important context, which is that this material has already been challenged, answered, reverted, and restored recently, which is making this look like more of a slow-burn edit war than a simple case of BLP enforcement. MP was probably too zealous in reverting to the status quo--and definitely didn't need to use rollback to do so--but it makes it understandable. We're supposed to err on the side of caution when reverting for BLP, it's true, but MP's assertion that this is validly sourced isn't unreasonable, as evidenced by the BLPN discussion; this isn't a clear-cut BLP violation. I'd trout the both of you for edit-warring, with MP getting a slightly bigger end of the troutstick for the rollback, and call it a day. Writ Keeper  15:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
The previous revert was not based on BLP (or at least no claim to that was explicitly made), my revert was the first and only to make an explicit BLP claim and it is the only revert that I have ever done to the page. As such, I do not believe I was edit warring. And I'm not claiming that MP's claims that it is valid are unreasonable, consensus might end up deciding that he is right. But until it does, I made a good faith removal of BLP material, and it should not be restored until consensus decides it is valid. -Obsidi (talk) 15:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
That's not how it works. To quote the edit war policy: The following reverts are exempt from the edit-warring policy (...) Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to our biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption. (emphasis mine) Later in the same section: When in doubt, do not revert. Instead, engage in dispute resolution and, in particular, ask for help at relevant noticeboards such as the Edit war and 3RR noticeboard. Given the earlier disputes about that line, which you were of course aware of, you knew that it would be controversial whether your reversion would fall under BLP, and given that discussion was already underway on BLP/N, your revert was unnecessary. So, no, I'm not buying that. Writ Keeper  15:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
The actual quote starts with Note that, although the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. I have not used the exemption from 3RR, as I have only reverted once. My revert is necessary to remove what I in good faith believe to be BLP violating material until consensus has been reached. -Obsidi (talk) 15:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I have precisely zero expertise or authority, but Obsidi, I very much agree with Writ Keeper. You seem (to me, at least) to be very enthusiastically barking up the wrong tree. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
...No, it doesn't. The section I quoted, Wikipedia:Edit_warring#Exemptions, doesn't mention the three revert rule anywhere in its body, except in reference to the name of the ANEW board. 3RR isn't relevant to this, as I never brought it up. Your revert wasn't necessary, because it's not clear that this is BLP-violating material, which is what the BLP/N discussion is for. BLP isn't a license to kill (read: edit-war) on BLP pages. I know you reverted in good faith, which is one reason among others I'm not considering a block at the moment. But that doesn't make you right. Writ Keeper  15:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I thought you were referring to the similar language in WP:BLPREMOVE. I do not believe I was edit warring, so I do not believe that the exception applied. -Obsidi (talk) 16:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
It's also worth noting that before engaging in this forum shopping Obsidi was asked to provide one or two reliable sources that actually refuted the reliably sourced statement the page includes. They responded by providing a list of some 80 headlines tangentially related to the subject which they insisted they could not narrow down because it was all behind a paywall. Simonm223 (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I am not forum shopping, I came here to discuss behavior, not if the content to should be added or not. BLP does not require that those who dispute the statement provide a RS to refute the statement in the article. I said, in talk, that as far as I could find, there is no RS that ever uses that language. MjolnirPants said I was lying about that (specifically and I quote Bull-motherfucking-shit. She-goddamn-nanigans. I don't believe this shit for one second. [13]), and so I provided the list of every single source I could find with those words so he could verify what I said (that none of the sources that use those words actually says what is claimed). I am not required by BLP to provide a RS that refutes the statement in the article. -Obsidi (talk) 15:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Was it a good faith revert? Or was it Obsidi following MPants around because they are angry about previous interactions? Grandpallama (talk) 15:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I am not "following MPants around" I regularly watch the noticeboards, including BLPN. Which is where I first saw this dispute taking place. You will notice that all my edits around this were originally exclusively on BLPN. I didn't care if MPants was there or not. -Obsidi (talk) 15:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm assuming so, but your mileage may vary. Writ Keeper  15:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm struggling to even see this as a good faith report. You tangle with MPants in a few places, write a whiny complaint on his talkpage (which is what resulted in him banning you from it), and then subsequently show up on a page you've never edited before just to undo an edit by MPants that is part of a minor editing disagreement a few days earlier. You should seriously take the advice GreenMeansGo gave you (even if you didn't like the way it was delivered) and spend some time doing more mainspace editing and less time bringing people to AN/I or in front of ARBCOM. Grandpallama (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • This was clearly a content dispute in which Obsidi is apparently using the BLP exemption to mask POV-based edits. If there is a behavioral issue here, it lies in that behavior, not in that of MjolnirPants. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:53, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Also this seems like an attempt at pre-emptive reporting before you pulled a report. MPants said this to you at 14:33. Your very next edit, less than 20 minutes later was this. Which means you had basically exactly enough time to write your complaint after reading that MPants was considering going to AN/I if you didn't stop your tendentious WP:SOUP at Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos. Honestly this seems so specifically retaliatory that a boomerang might not be the worst idea ever. Simonm223 (talk) 15:57, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I was writing my complaint before I ever saw MPants write that (which is why when I noticed it, I posted it on this forum as a reply). -Obsidi (talk) 16:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I would recommend to close the topic before it escalates into a boomerang.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:00, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

G'day mate, I'd like to talk about this here throwing stick...[edit]

For starters, let me address the rollback thing: I didn't mean to. I was literally trying to check out something else and hit it, and there's no confirmation dialog (WHICH THERE SHOULD BE DAMNIT) so it went through. Now, I had every intention of undoing Obsidi's edit, because it was based on some rather bad-faith argumentation (see below), so instead of re-rollbacking or re-rollbacking and then undoing, I just left it and went to talk, where I edit conflicted and then changed my response to what you can see there now.

Next, this is a clear-cut case of WP:CRYBLP. Obsidi is lying about what the sources (notice the plural and see: [14], [15], [16] [17] [18] [19]) are saying: They are explicit that Milo solicited ideas from neo-nazis and white supremacists, and that Milo engages in neo-nazi and white supremacist behavior, yet obsidi is insisting that they merely claim he "associates" with neo-nazis and white supremacists. Obsidi then used that as an excuse to WP:CRYBLP, and announced his intention to edit against the consensus, and then quickly proceeded to do so.


But putting that particular issue aside for the moment, I'd like to say a few things about Obsidi.

I'm not above suggesting that Obsidi is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, and is, instead here to indulge in their desire to stir up drama and WP:ADVOCATE for various right-wing causes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:58, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

From what I've seen, Obsidi is indeed a problematic editor who is probably going to end up with some sort of topic ban if he continues on his current course. Softlavender (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, but what topic? And even with a topic ban, if they just continue to go around on the back-end, stirring up drama about policies they've never used in practice and consensuses they don't know how to read, then how does that help? I'm usually all for substituting a topic ban for a block, but in this case, I think the best interests of WP are just to block this guy and be done with it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I hear you, that's why I didn't mention a topic. If a topic ban cannot cover all of his disruption, then an indef for DE, POV-pushing, and TE, etc. Softlavender (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
No disagreement, here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I am not lying about what the sources say. None of the sources say that Milo was inspired by neo-nazis and white supremacists. (Go look at them!) Yes, he solicited ideas and asked them questions, but I do not believe that means he was inspired by them. Saying someone is inspired by neo-nazis is a horrible claim to make against someone who merely asked them for their ideas on a piece to be written about them. I was not editing against consensus, there was not yet consensus on this subject.
To respond to the other issues that MPants brought up:
  • I strongly believe in NPOV policy. That we shouldn’t say something is a conspiracy theory (which says there is no reliable evidence for that belief), unless it is fringe to believe there is such evidence. A minority view, on the otherhand should be respected. This is NPOV policy and all I have advocated for.
  • What I argued is not a conspiracy theory is that there are “government and military officials who secretly manipulate or direct national policy.” For which I believe this New York Times article provided the proof. This is the same view publicly expressed by the House Majority Leader in the Hill [26]. I do not believe this is a crazy view fringe.
  • I started the RfC after the sentence has been removed, and after I objected, it was forced back into the article . I started the RfC to establish consensus on if that sentence should be removed (for which many people agreed with me that it shouldn’t). Maybe I should have phrased the RfC so that I was supporting keeping the sentence rather than opposing the removal, but that difference isn’t to just make a point.
  • I have 2,576 edits, most of which are in WP or talk namespaces, because usually I like to discuss the changes and let others actually add them to the articles. I’m not here to rack up barnstars or celebrate how many edits I have. I only get involved when I think the WP processes are breaking down and the policies of WP are not being enforced. My point isn’t to advocate for a viewpoint, but to advocate WP policies. Look back at my edits, you will see I am rarely getting involved unless I think there is a policy problem. I care about WP policies and that they are accurately enforced. That is why I am here.
Am I a right-wing person? Yes, but that doesn’t mean I am here to violate the NPOV and other policies of WP. Almost all my edits are to advocate FOR such policies when I think they are being violated.
I started this with a focus only on this one topic (the Milo page), and what I saw as violations of BLP policy. But if we are going to go beyond that to broader questions of behavior, then I would like to bring up the incredibly uncivil behavior of MPants. Just in this very instance he accused me of Bull-motherfucking-shit. She-goddamn-nanigans.[27]. Or when he told me to fuck off[28], and said other people just bitched[29]. But this isn’t an isolated instance. Just go back through his talk page edits and they are FULL of him saying incredibly rude things to people all the time. -Obsidi (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
And the appearance of "but MPants is mean to me" declarations absolutely vindicates my belief about where this filing came from in the first place, and why a boomerang is the proper course of action. Grandpallama (talk) 16:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
This isn't about me at all, there are a ton of edits to all kinds of other people where he has been rude. Feel free to ignore all the comments he directed at me, and look at the rest of his history. -Obsidi (talk) 16:49, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I tend to rarely edit articles directly instead relying upon talk pages, that is quite true. But also look at how many edits per month. You will see that sometimes I am very active, but usually I have other things to do than worry about WP and I have 0 edits for years at a time. 11 years isn't long when you don't edit at all for many of those. -Obsidi (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support indef block per WP:NOTHERE based on the evidence I gave, above, combined with the fact that Obsidi is still insisting that the sources don't say what they obviously say in his response to the refutation I gave above; this is either a severe lack of competence or severe tendentiousness. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support indef block largely because this isn't the first time. Obsidi did the exact same thing - the tendentious talk arguments, the WP:CRYBLP and the slow edit-warring with regard to Tucker Carlson and the advocacy of the Daily Caller for the White genocide conspiracy theory. [30] [31][32][33][34] Simonm223 (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I only get involved when I think the WP processes are breaking down and the policies of WP are not being enforced. - this sounds very much like Obsidi is here to push a point of view, not to build an encyclopedia. Perhaps that user should try getting involved on non-controversial topics. I don't currently support an indef block, but agree that it looks like one will be coming soon if Obsidi's behavior doesn't change. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I propose a topic ban for both parties? Maybe just Obsidi? Indef block is a bit extreme. Hdjensofjfnen (♪ Oh, can I get a connection? Alternatively, trout me.) 16:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support indef block for persistent DE, POV-pushing, TE, and NOTHERE behavior which has disrupted Wikipedia too long at this point. Softlavender (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I've indefinitely blocked the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:53, 25 October 2018 (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.

Incivility[edit]

SOWIEJGIOWEJGOIWJEOGJW
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.

In addition, I note that this was previously closed with a more specific warning to MjolnirPants not to use specific euphemisms while addressing other editors. That close was reverted: there is, broadly, a general lack of consensus that such a warning is appropriate, and several participants in this discussion have objected specifically to that warning, while others have indicated they have found MjolnirPants' choice of language offensive and disruptive.

The "fuck" matter will not be resolved in this thread. Everyone, whatever language you decide to use, please be respectful of your fellow editors. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:51, 26 October 2018 (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.

Have to comment here after the NAC. I was surprised to see no attention given to complaints about MjolnirPants's incivility by Obsidi. Quite something to see him regularly make comments and edit summaries like this: Bull-motherfucking-shit. She-goddamn-nanigans. I don't believe this shit for one second, fuck off, Fuck off with this hypocritical butthurt, fucking bullshit, fuck off and don't come back, fuck off with that shit, bitchfit removed. Fuck your bullshit and your templates. Seriously; fuck off and don't post to my page again, If you disagree with it, you should go fuck yourself and pray to whatever deity you worship that we never meet in person etc. ScienceApe was just indefinitely blocked and had his talkpage access removed for similar comments. So are you giving MjolnirPants some kind of a special privilege of not having to comply with WP:CIV by turning a blind eye? Any comments @Bbb23:? --Pudeo (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, that wasn't what this thread was about. This was a quickly trumped-up thread to get MPants in trouble over one or two edits that had substantial support on the article's talkpage, and was part of a longterm pattern of disruption and POV-pushing and battlegroundishness on the part of the OP, who only under duress threw in some additional charges. If you want to open a new thread, on MPants and present a case for incivility, you are welcome to. I personally don't think it will get very far, but that's just my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 20:57, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
The inappropriate comments were part of the complaint, but the complainer got hit with a boomerang. Such comments add nothing constructive to Wikipedia, offend other editors, and make the writer look like a low class fool. Better to stop them. Legacypac (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
No, they weren't part of the original complaint at all. Softlavender (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, second post by the OP Legacypac (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)"I know what I'll do! I'll express my dissaproval at someone's perceived incivility by calling them names! That'll show em!" Presumably Legacypac, soon before writing the above comment.
Seriously, dude, go look at the context of those edits. In every case, it was me dealing with some tendentious childishness. If you expect me to never sound salty about anything, you've got some wildly misplaced expectations. I can think of at least one editor (hint hint) who just succumbed to their frustration and lashed out with a personal attack worse than anything I said above, whom I just forgive for it because really, who cares?
P.S. That last diff was me referring to the claim "The Holocaust was a Really Bad Thing". And I stand by what I said in that diff 100%. If anyone reading this ever meets me in person and insists that the Holocaust was a good thing, I will very likely beat you to within an inch of your life, or die trying. Racism and genocide are kinda sore spots with me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I did not call you any names, I gave the same advice I give to the kids I teach - speaking low class makes you look low class. People take you more seriously if you speak/type in a respectful way. Legacypac (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
You did call me a name, you were just careful to couch it as an opinion, which many people often mistake for carefully phrasing it as not being an insult. Just because it's opinion doesn't mean it's not insulting. What you need to do to avoid insulting people is to not say that they are "low class fools" in any terms. You might say that they have engaged in some foolishness, or that their comments lack class. But "I think you're a low class fool" is no more civil than "you're a low class fool".
Also, as advice, it's really quite shitty advice (well, maybe not so much for a kid, but certainly for an adult), so forgive me if I don't take it. Perhaps if you tried thinking in adult terms instead of kid terms you might come up with some better advice. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:01, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Oh lawd. Arkon (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
@MPants at work: "dealing with some tendentious childishness" is no excuse. Such language is never helpful, and should have no place here. Paul August 21:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. You wouldn't fight a fire by pouring gasoline on it, right? ansh666 21:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Please look at the entirety of the posts and threads (not just the few words quoted), grasp the tone and venue and circumstance, and understand that on own's one talkpage such retorts are par for the course in such circumstances on Wikipedia, even for a large number of highly respected administrators and even arbitrators. Softlavender (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
@Softlavender: Being "par for the course" doesn't make it helpful. Paul August 21:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps not, but it is the norm, and therefore not sanctionable. Cussing on one's own talkpage when dealing with BS is not sanctionable. Softlavender (talk) 21:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm saying it's shameful, whether sanctionable or not. Paul August 21:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
All things being equal, if my saltiness at my talk page encourages other editors not post edits like those I was responding to, then mission accomplished. Note my big red edit notice. I'm not here to quibble and argue about who was being meaner to whom, and my usual response to being insulted or being the recipient of some rudeness is to either ignore it or lampshade it and move on. I would humbly suggest that more editors should be like me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Note: Bbb23 doesn't get ping notifications (he turned them off). The issue was resolved by the disruptive party being blocked. Hence the close of this thread. If someone wants to open up another thread about MPants, please create a separate thread. His communications to the indef-blocked editor on his very own talk page (and a couple on the endless Milo threads) are not going to gain any traction, especially given tone and circumstance and context and venue. I suggest this matter be dropped unless someone wants to open a new and separate thread with some actually sanctionable evidence. Softlavender (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
    • The first post is my "case". It doesn't matter to me whether the title has two or three =-symbols. And most of the personal attacks detailed in my message are not directed at Obsidian, but editors in good-standing, like admin Northamerica1000, who was also told to "fuck off" in the diff I included[35]. And what's alarming is that these diffs are just starting from September. --Pudeo (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
If the first post is your "case," then I would move to dismiss for improper venue. Dumuzid (talk) 21:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Based on what? I could have also reverted the non-admin close. Also ANI threads don't have to be formulated like ArbCom requests. The incivility is chronic and intractable and as such is within the scope of this noticeboard, and also mentioned in the above thread. --Pudeo (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Because this is not an incident, of course. This is you trawling through my contributs, cherry picking out those times that I got salty with someone who was being a pain to try and get me sanctioned because you don't like me (your opinions of editors with liberal political views is no secret, buddy). I would further note that I have made 1,882 edits since September first. If, as you say, this is just my incivility since then, then it represents 0.425% of my editing, assuming that my attitude has remained constant over time (it hasn't: I've been dealing with a lot more POV warriors the past few months than usual). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
The message to Northamerica1000 was a response to being templated, which is known to rile some people. Bellezzasolo Discuss 21:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
In fact, Northamerica1000 templated me and reverted me because I participated in a running joke with another admin. Ironically, me and the others (there was more than one other) were making fun of officiousness. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I remember that. Came across to me as possibly being a potential tactic to potentially game the system. The user could then theoretically continue to engage in questionable behavior, and if warned about it by me, could then state that they didn't want me posting on their talk page. Of course, this may not be the case, with the rude response simply being an angry retort. A similar type of post was posted by the user in this diff, listed above. At the very least, hopefully MjolnirPants can consider the notion that such statements are uncivil, and go against the grain of assuming good faith. Running around and telling various users to "fuck off" all the time is quite sophomoric. North America1000 21:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I will say this: I'm very unlikely to consider the feeling of an editor who singles me out for participating in a joke to revert and then template (without ever considering the fact that they just engaged in pompous officiousness in response to several editors mocking pompous officiousness) in the future. I'm far more likely to consider how pointlessly uncivil it is to revert someone and template them for participating in a running joke. And I'm very likely to revert them with an angry retort (well, a snide retort, really, but you can't be blamed for not reading the right tone into some plain text). Sorry, that's just my nature. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Boomerang for Pudeo? The OP of the original thread was the latest in a long line of bad-leground editors attacking MPants and opening frivolous ANI threads on him; re-opening the thread after it's already been closed as such is pretty disruptive at best. Hijiri 88 (やや) 22:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Certainly not a boomerang. MPants' comments on their own talk page probably are not sanctionable, but they shouldn't be encouraged. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Meh. I was pinged. You know I love you MJ, but you're not gonna break anything if you tone it down about 1.7 notches. Maybe you get it right, but maybe you don't, and maybe someone you got it wrong on just gets the impression that Wikipedia is a place where a bunch of assholes act like a bunch of assholes to one another, so please go back to Facebook. Gallows humor doesn't translate well over text, and we're not in the freezing mud shooting the shit with the other sergeants, as much as I enjoy and loath those moments. At the very least, it will avoid threads like this, and if you don't think that users who are not so well integrated into the organizational culture would be long since blocked for the same thing, I think you're kidding yourself. GMGtalk 22:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)"and if you don't think that users who are not so well integrated into the organizational culture would be long since blocked for the same thing, I think you're kidding yourself." I think you've hit the nail on the head, GMG. And to pick up on power~enwiki's comments above, these comments are very clearly sanctionable under our policies and the consensus of the vast majority of the members of our work community; if "Fuck you and you better hope I don't find you on the street someday" is not a violation of WP:CIVILITY, I can't fathom what comment would be, and why we'd even bother to have a civility policy to begin with. Surely even the editor who made such a comment would, if competent, recognize the inappropriateness of such threats and invectives--hopefully before they hit the edit button, but certainly at least once they have calmed down. If an editor can't even own up to such issues after the fact, there's an WP:IDHT and basic WP:CIR issue that will have to be addressed by the community eventually.
The reason it takes so long at present is two-fold: 1) the massive differential between what is tolerated (with little to no consequence) of long-term contributors and what would get a new editor immediately indeffed, as GMG notes, and 2) the fact that this single noticeboard responds to the majority of complaints about such behaviour, and there is a collective of editors here who have more or less set-up camp to push back against any efforts to contain such temper-tantrums--not because they are actively colluding to cover eachother's back, but just because they share an ideological belief that they should always be able to react to a situation and "call at as they see it", and as their perspective and emotional state inclines them, without any restrictions on their comments whatsoever. These editors steadfastly refuse to internalize any piece of WP:NOTFREESPEECH and decry any effort to reign in editors with a similar perspective and predilections as 'bureaucratic nonsense' or 'hand wringing by easily upset editors'. "But that guy really was a fucking asshole, so it's perfectly ok to call him that, whatever WP:NPA says" they insist, or: "When I say that I'm going to find somebody and make them regret what they have said, nobody really believes its a real threat!"
These sentiments are not just in conflict with the explicit directions of policy and community consensus, they demonstrate a kind of willful ignorance of the inexhaustible number of reasons that such comments corrode our established processes, undermine the work we are here to do (and make the work that does get done so much more onerous for everyone involved), drive experienced contributors off the project and discourage new ones from taking their place (contributing to an editor retention problem that has grown to an outright existential threat to our whole endeavor), create liability for the project, and frankly just debase our reputation for maturity and reliability, embarrassing the rest of us with their lack of self-control. That's to mention just a few of the possible consequences that take place on project; one only needs to look at the headlines in the news this week to see the broader consequences of what happens when unchecked hostility becomes a part of public discourse for too long.
Most of the (very small, but very vocal) minority who leap to excuse such comments every time they appear here (provided they come from the "right" people) come from others who are recognizably the same hotheads who have been the subject of a similar thread recently and probably will be again some time soon (though good luck convincing them there is a connection between their own propensity for being brought here themselves and their perspective on WP:NOTFREESPEECH/WP:NPA when defending others here). However, even for that hypothetical editor who just objects to any checks on violent or angry rhetoric on-project for purely philosophical reasons because "the greater good" demands unrestricted ability to speak ones mind, I would say the following: I respect your belief and believe there is some merit in it, but you're either going to have to temper that absolutist perspective in order to conform with the standards adopted by this community, or find somewhere else to volunteer your time, because we decided a long time ago (and most editors in good standing here continue to feel) that there must be limits in this work environment."
And this is a work environment, make no mistake, even if we are all here as volunteers; this isn't just us getting together with some chums for a hobby, and there's more at stake than our individual rights to blow off steam and tell others what we really think of them. And I highly doubt that most of our editors can get away with telling their co-workers in their professional life that they are going to come after them if given the opportunity. Frankly, if you're someone making those particular kinds of comments to anyone, anywhere, at any time, I hope you pay a consequence for it. It never helps a situation, whether at work, on the street, on facebook, or on Wikipedia; it only adds vitriol into the world. In any event, this community has rules, and we've been doing a bad job in recent years of holding editors to those standards (and applying those standards equitably to all members of the community). In particular, any threat of violence (whether conditional on finding that person first or not) ought to be grounds for an immediate block, and indef if it happens more than once. Any other course of action is infeasible and unsustainable for this project. Snow let's rap 00:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Yup. --Jayron32 12:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Can we close this? This is stupid. --Tarage (talk) 23:01, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Urge admins to issue a sanction regarding MPants at work making these threats of physical violence. Even if rather ridiculous, threats of violence should never be condoned and must be sanctioned. Considering MPants at work seems justified and/or fails to agree that their comments are unacceptable, the only option I see is a 72 hour block. If it happens again I urge an indefinite block.--MONGO (talk) 12:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I think MPant's behavior should be looked at. This way of communication is unhelpful whatever the personal failings of the other parties. I also think it's draconian to suggest WP:BOOMERANG on Pudeo given what they've shown that this is long-standing behavior (some of these diffs are from September and clearly shows this isn't exclusive to the MPants/Obsidi thing). Don't get me wrong, I'm clueless to the whole MPants/Obsidi thing (I haven't read anything above this but that's already actioned no need to delve further into that), but we shouldn't excuse these comments just because the other side is disruptive as it doesn't accomplish anything but create a more hostile editing environment (the same can be accomplished by acting reasonably when dealing when disruptive editors and is the best way to show the other side is being disruptive). Given that MPants continues to be 'justified' in their behavior, I'd fully support sanctions against MPants as well.—Mythdon (talkcontribs) 12:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Since this got unclosed, I just want to say that Snow's rant above is ignorant, arrogant and chock full of lies and personal attacks against not just me, but against a number of other editors. If someone wants to give me shit for incivility, that's fine, but don't sit here and engage in outright hypocrisy over it. You've got an editor engaging in blatant incivility, relying on their status with the community to excuse them, all in the service of complaining about an editor whose status with the community excuses incivility.
The claim that I ever threatened to track anyone down is complete bullshit. Complete bullshit. I never said anything of the sort, and Snow is lying when they say that I did.
Snow also apparently lied about the nature of the comment: claiming in the edit summary that they edit conflicted with the close, except that the close was more than an hour before the edit was posted. So Snow decided to add to a closed discussion, knowing I couldn't respond without re-opening it.
The claim that "there's an WP:IDHT and basic WP:CIR issue that will have to be addressed by the community" is a petty, immature personal attack. Claiming that I refuse to listen is pure willful ignorance (I responded to GMG's post on his talk page after this section was close, agreeing with most of what he said), and the CIR thing is just juvenile.
The claim that my behavior is only (and by implication, always) excused by a circle of friends is just as empty. Me and softlavender have almost always disagreed at ANI. Not always, but most of the time. Me and Bellezzasolo have never interacted before. Me and Granpallama have had a single conversation, and GMG is the closest thing to a friend I have in this thread, yet he told me to cool my jets. I think Tarage and Hijiri are the only editors I have a good relationship with who said anything in support of me.
The rest of the comment is just more of the same. Empty rhetoric, assumptions that Snow knows my own mind better than I do, and bald-faced dishonesty. Tarage has hit the nail on the head, but then, that should have been recognizable to anyone as soon as someone showed up to call me names right after this was brought up.
For those of you interested: This is the kind of bullshit that gets me salty. I've been dealing with petty, immature lies about me for the past few months, and you actually act shocked that I respond without a filter from time to time?
The one thing, above all else, that I can't stand is petty, pointless drama. And that's exactly what this whole thread is, from Obsidi's first report to Pudeo's (who's got no dog in this fight except his political views, surprise surprise) cherry picked diffs. So if ya'll want me to calm down, this dumb thread is decidedly NOT the way to do it. I mean, Jesus H. Christ, do you really think you can insult, lie about, and needle someone into being more polite? That's just phenomenally ignorant. I already told GMG I'd work on being more chill with the bullshit pushers. Continuing this stupid thread is pretty much the definition of "counter-productive". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Where did Snow say MjolnirPants 'ever threatened to track anyone down'. The closest I can see is '"Fuck you and you better hope I don't find you on the street someday"' and 'And I highly doubt that most of our editors can get away with telling their co-workers in their professional life that they are going to come after them if given the opportunity' and 'any threat of violence (whether conditional on finding that person first or not) ought to be grounds for an immediate block' which aren't the same thing. Is there some other post by Snow I'm missing or has Snow's post been modified? Nil Einne (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
You just answered your own question. If you don't see it, then I'm not going to debate you on it because you're intentionally not seeing it, so there's no point. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • As everyone ought to pretty much know by now, admins aren't too keen on blocking people for dropping f-bombs, even very long clusters of them, and if racism and antisemitism are things that get you riled up then congratulations, you're not an asshole. Going back and forth about it is pointless drama. But that being said, MPants at work, 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. There is no reason to write threats like this on Wikipedia. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:25, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Since someone brought it up: no, I'm not going to block now for a comment that was written more than a month ago. But don't do it again. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
...There is no reason to write threats like this on Wikipedia. Fair enough, but as I said before: this was directed at a hypothetical (not real) editor who disagrees with the statement "The Holocaust was a Really Bad Thing that We Should Never Do Again". I'll keep it to myself from now on, but I stand by that statement 100%. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
You shouldn't stand by it. You should retract it and admit that you were wrong. There are real editors who disagree with the statement "The Holocaust was a Really Bad Thing that We Should Never Do Again". They are racist idiots, but threatening them with "pray to whatever deity you worship that we never meet in person" just plays into their hands. This is the result of advocating violence to promote political goals. Please take it back and go back to ridiculing the racist idiots rather than threatening them. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I'm never going to apologize for harboring a perfectly rational hated of out-and-out nazis. I can do "turn down the aggresiveness a notch or two", and even "keep that extent of your opinion of nazis to yourself", but I will never think it's a bad thing that I would rather cold-cock a nazi than debate one. Not in a million years. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
I think it equally outrageous that Obsidi--an editor who had been here since 2007, in good standing, with no prior blocks--was indefinitely blocked less than two hours after he filed a complaint against Mpants. I could not even tell what behavior was so horrible that it could constitute "long-term disruption", and I saw no evidence of repeated warnings. There were also no diffs provided. To me that shows a very serious problem with how this AN/I board functions.
I no longer see editors being given an assumption of good faith. It appears to me that they are being abused with incivility, eliminated for complaining about it--not because they break rules--but because they disagree on content. We need more admins and neutral editors with eyes on this notice board, because this has really gotten out of hand in recent years. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC) [revised 16:22, 26 October 2018 (UTC), --David Tornheim (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)]
I think it equally outrageous that Obsidi--an editor who had been here since 2007, in good standing, with no prior blocks--was indefinitely blocked less than two hours after he filed a complaint against Mpants. I could not even tell what behavior was so horrible that it could constitute "long-term disruption", and I saw no evidence of repeated warnings. There were also no diffs provided. You see, David. This is why I don't take you seriously.
The problem with Obsidi is described in detail just up this page a bit, where I actually gave 20 diffs (and myriad other evidence) you claim were never given.
As for the rest: Well, you've been following me around for several weeks now, ever since I curtly told you not to ping me back to a page where you gave me a ration of crap only to discover that I wasn't the problem at that page, after all. This whole time, you've been a pain in my ass and been supporting some rather ridiculous propositions, like endorsing a BLP-violating conspiracy theory. You might also notice that said support for a BLP-violating conspiracy theory (which consisted of you cherry picking sources and then contradicting yourself) is what I described as "bullshit" and that, contrary to what I said there, I actually did eventually read and respond to your claims. So we can now add this to the number of places where you've shown up for no reason other than to disagree with me and say ignorant (or dishonest: I'm not going to speculate which) things to support that disagreement. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:18, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
MPants provided 26 diffs. Simonm223 provided 5 diffs. Others provided links to the user's contribs and edit history, which display a clear pattern, especially to anyone who has been editing or watching any of those articles/pages/noticeboards. The user had had an observable disruptive pattern over quite a while. And there were plenty of warnings and notifications on his talkpage: [36]. -- Softlavender (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Okay, sorry. I did not see those diffs. It looked like a long rant. I will look at the diffs. I have struck the comment saying there were no diffs. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Be done with this, please?[edit]

I have better things to do here, so can an uninvolved admin come, take a look, and decide either to accept that I've already said multiple times I would work on being more civil with tendentious editors, or that I need to be punished and how? Thanks. @Ivanvector: You've made yourself clear enough to me already. If you want to put that in a close and go drop a formal warning or something on my talk page, that's fine. Hell, you can go revdel that edit if you want, I really don't care. I'm just sick of seeing this crap. This is exactly the kind of dumb shit that makes me pissy to begin with. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:32, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

If your description of being civil with other editors includes not using words like "Fuck off" and the likes, apart from what you already said above (that you will never use threats of violence again), I can close this with a neutral statement. If it doesn't, I can indefinitely block you till you agree. What say? Lourdes 16:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
WTF Lourdes? Have you read anything that Ivanvector said above? You are threatening a longterm user with an indef block unless they accede to your very specific demands and your extremely idiosyncratic interpretation of WP:CIVIL? Softlavender (talk) 16:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
I'll await M Pants response on my offer. Lourdes 16:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Me and Softlavender are in perfect agreement here (we've usually disagreed at ANI). But if you want to block me, go do it now, so we can at least get a head start on all the stupid drama that is gonna cause. I've already said I would work on civility. If you think I need to kowtow to some condescending demands as well... Well, I think you know by now what my response to that is. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
If it is your opinion that no user is allowed to tell someone to fuck off, please cite the policy and a few examples of someone being blocked for saying fuck off with no other violation. If it is your opinion that you can impose different fuck off rules on ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants than the rules that apply to other editors, please prepare yourself for a shitstorm as multiple Wikipedia complain about your behavior. I agree that ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants should greatly reduce this behavior, but disagree with you threatening a block. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Motion to close[edit]

Okay, now we have multiple admins fighting over closing and unclosing this, and it's getting to be much more of a spectacle than it needs to be. @Bishonen, Lourdes, Snow Rise, and Guy Macon