Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive995

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: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: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)
  • Your comment brought my attention back to the threats of violence as I forgot about those when I made my original comment.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 12:56, 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

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: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".

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.

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%.

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.

Tell me all about it.

15:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• Agree thank you to Pudeo for filing this. I consider Mpants incivility a serious problem, which was completely ignored above. I have seen it directed at others and at myself. He said, "I don't need to bother reading whatever you have to say, as it's bound to be bullshit." I warned him to stop. His response was "Sure thing. As soon as you stop writing bullshit." I support sanctions on Mpants.

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.

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?

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. @

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

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.

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

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: can we agree to move on? If not, what do we need to talk about? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth I propose as closing statement: "Mjolnirpants 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." Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not very multiple AFAICS, Ivanvector. Lourdes "closed" the discussion with a supervote and a threat; I reverted her, with an explanatory note; and a non-admin, User:Mr rnddude, reverted me, removed my comment, and edit warred over it, with Softlavender (whose actions I appreciate). I actually don't see any admins fighting or contributing to any spectacle. I think it's a little sudden to close right now, in mid-discussion, but if you think it's ready to be summarized, Ivan, be my guest. Bishonen | talk 18:22, 26 October 2018 (UTC).

Well, Lourdes, yourself, and me (I wrote a close but edit-conflicted with one of Lourdes' comments and then decided to leave it), and a few other names in that list who I assumed were admins but in fact are not (not that it should matter, really). I don't see where there's more to talk about but it's evident some others do, so I'm trying to either move the discussion forward or determine for certain that it is concluded, rather than try to close this a fourth time and have that be reverted. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I think we've reached the point of people merely repeating themselves, and that Ivanvector's summation is about as clear and as resolved as this is going to get, because apparently no one's position on the matter is going to change at this point, I don't think. Softlavender (talk) 18:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Bishonen: User talk:Softlavender#Short note should explain my second revert. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Bish, it wasn't so much an edit-war, as it was me using rollback without thinking and therefore then not able to leave an edit-summary, so Mr rnddude had no context for my first revert. Softlavender (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

(wasn't trying to top post, I didn't get an edit conflict) We really need a dispute resolution process that is not ANI. Although I'd support a closing statement of "Sowiejgiowejgoiwjeogjw" too, just to make it go away, bonus points to Ivan's proposed close because it actually seems to be a reasonable summary of the thread. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I certainly have no objection. My edit after the close was a mistake, hence my revert. Anyway, I've already said more than my fair share as a concerned community member, and I personally think the thread has served what purpose it can and brought us all as close to agreement as we are likely to be at this time; no objection to your proposed closing language either. Snow ^{let's rap} 18:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• I don't know which action is most appropriate here, but it should be more than a warning. MP offering to "work on civility" doesn't mean very much when he is simultaneously still defending his actions in this very thread: [37], [38]. Some other comments seem bizarre to me. A user threatens conditional violence multiple times, and one comment is to ignore it because it happened more than a month ago? This user has been on WP for years and this behavior is likely to continue if serious steps are not taken. Deleet (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Mpants said he's "working on civility". I don't think it would be too much asked for him to just stop saying "fuck off" to anyone, full stop. So his actual response is rather unimpressive but your warning sounds about right, except that Mpants has been incivil against editors who are not racist one bit, like NA1000 or David Tornheim. So it's not just about "incivil when addressing blatant racism". --Pudeo (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

We can't legislate specific phrases he is not allowed to use, when half of the administrators on Wikipedia regularly use the same phrase. As I said above, people are merely repeating themselves at this point, and no one's position on the matter is going to change, so bringing up the same matter again is not going to help reach a resolution. He says he's going to dial back. If he doesn't, he'll end up back here. Softlavender (talk) 18:35, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• FWIW, I'm not willing to discuss this matter any further, except on two user talk pages where I have explicitly said I was willing. If there's a line of editors waiting to comment here to request sanctions against me, then get get them into an orderly queue and then somebody decide whether "I will dial it back, and I will not bring up violence like that again" is a good enough conclusion, or if we need to just block me and have a great big stink about that, next. But seriously: I'm done. I agree with Floq, Ivan and Bish (obviously), but I don't care enough to edit war over the close. Just, please, everyone let's stop fighting about this! All of us have better things to do.
  Tell me all about it.
  18:30, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Ivan, your proposed summary is perfect enough. Close it. Lourdes 18:29, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Support close; whether the close has a discouragement or a warning or just restates MPants' agreement to try to be more civil isn't concerning to me.

π, ν

) 18:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)