I do not have the patience to deal with POV pushers, the ranks of whom are filled with more and more fucking nazis damn near every time I log in, and then be taken to task because some fucking morons think me being rude to them is a bigger problem than what they're doing. I've been told by four different admins that they're all aware we have a racist, POV pushing child rape advocate <outing redacted>.

I'm not going to respond to the dozens of moronic opinions expressed here and at ANI. It's not worth it; no matter what I say, the idiots making those comments will still be idiots.

I have to deal with idiots in my daily life, and so I'm resigned to that. But I don't have to do it my hobby, so I'm fucking done. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I have every sympathy. Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) MPants, as you've pointed out to some other users, "subtle" stuff flies under the radar -- you're right. I know exactly which users are gonna try to take the following statement out of context to argue I should be desysoped, banned, tarred, feathered, drawn, quartered, and investigated for smuggling children into a non-existent basement in a DC pizza parlor but whenever bigots, cranks, trolls, and other folks who simply don't belong here make me feel like ignoring WP:CIVIL, I try to stay subtle (but not civil) by:

• talking about a hypothetical third person who just happens to strongly resemble the problem user, so I can say I'm just commenting on behavior and not the user
• keeping individual words daytime TV friendly even if the gist of my message is "Nazis can fuck off on rusty cheese graters"

This is why a certain troll website describes me as "habitually disruptive, deceptive, flame-baiting" but there's been no ANI threads in a long while about my civility (that weren't almost immediately boomeranged at any rate). This is also one of the few times where I'm having to stop and think "will I get in trouble for posting this?" Ian.thomson (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm actually tempted to work a little of that strategy into WP:HOTHEADS, if you find that it actually works.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019[edit]

Note[edit]

I have every sympathy with your position, and I am just replacing this message, deleted by over zealous admins I presume. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

A section of this page has been deleted by an admin, after I restored it. Their edsum reads " I've left your note, but the rest was removed by an oversight process. Please do not restore it. " Tis a fucking joke. That was not an oversight deletion, and just appears spiteful. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

When you see a "...removed from Wikipedia's public records..." edit by an admin, it is best to leave it be. Something went on that they can't tell us about. In the past I have inquired about these sort of blocks, and have been assured by people who I trust that any action that they can't publicly give a reason for gets a lot of extra scrutiny from multiple uninvolved admins. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

That's all very well, but the content I restored was not oversight deleted, and remains in the edit history for all to see. I urge lurkers to take a look. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

There is a reason why an admin might oversight some things and delete other things as part of oversighting. Sometimes the part that gets oversighted makes the rest invalid. Somebody writes something. I respond. The bit I responded to disappears. Now my response is out if context. It doesn't have to be a direct reply either. Somebody writes something. I write something else without mentioning X because somebody has already covered X. The bit that discusses X disappears. Now it looks like I purposely avoided discussing X. And it is far from obvious from the history that deleting my comment was a good idea. Seriously, we have to trust the admins in this case. We simply do not have the information needed to determine what should and should not be restored. I don't like it any better than you do; I regularly review admin decisions and ask questions if they seem a bit fishy. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Admins are not omniscient arbiters of interpretation and are not immune to WP:TPG; if someone objects to their non-oversighted material being removed, and there isn't a policy-based reason to remove it (doesn't contain attacks, copyvios, etc.), the admin isn't acting in an admin capacity if they stubbornly re-remove it again, they're just an editor editwarring against TPG.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, for the record, all {{OversightBlock}}s are subject to immediate review by the entire oversight team once they have been made. After changing Ivanvector’s block to an OS block, I immediately emailed the list for review. The content Roxy is discussing was not suppressed, but another OS’r felt it best to remove from the live page. I can’t really say anything else at this time. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Since we're doing this, let me just clarify that my blanking of the text was not intended an oversight action — indeed, it was not oversighted — but rather for the reason I stated in my edit summary. Even ignoring the content, what remained was a screed-like abuse of the talkpage while blocked, and such disruptions are routinely blanked, in particular for indefinite blocks. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Reply:Amorymeltzer The reason people are "doing this" is because you removed the material in the first place. First place; but not first class. ——SerialNumber54129 22:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Suicide by admin? You know, I was kind of expecting that. All the best, Thunderbritches. Bishonen | talk 20:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC).

• Folks, I've restored this talk page so that all the material MPants himself removed stays removed, and what was added since remains. If you did not see the oversighted content and don't know who did what, please don't try to guess at it and and attempt to restore it to a version that you didn't even see. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • If any of that is directed at me, then please don't try to guess at it and and attempt to restore it to a version that you didn't even see is utterly counter-factual. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
    • It was a general comment, as I have seen a number of people apparently making assumptions of who did what and why. At this point, I suggest leaving any more excisions or restorations to oversighters if anyone thinks they need doing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, since we're all weighing in, the reason I restored Amorymeltzer's original removal of what was not oversighted was specifically to avoid the exact drama-fest which is currently playing out on this page, after having speedy-closed the long ANI discussions for the same reason. Everyone, please, remember that we're all on the same team here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Retoring Amorymeltzer's removal seems fine to me, but Tryptofish's restoring of MPants's earlier removals was not. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
    • It was removed by two different administrators for reasons completely unrelated to the oversighting, reasons which strike me as fairly obvious. I don't see a good reason for you to have restored it in the first place. ~Swarm~ {talk} 21:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
      • At this point, I've lost track of which removals and restorations we are talking about, but I stand by what I did entirely. If one looks at what I actually put back – here, oh horror, is the diff: [1] – there is nothing wrong about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
        • There's nothing wrong with that content, no, and your motivation was honorable. But MPants himself removed it from his own talk page, and he had the right to do that, even if he was angry. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
          • I'll take your revision of your comment, in which you acknowledge that my "motivation was honorable", along with your original acknowledgement that there was "nothing wrong with that content", as good enough for now. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The way you have ALL behaved here in the last hour or so is actually a disgrace. You should all take yourselves off to ANI. Just remember the guy who's page this actually is probably watching. Leaky caldron (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

And you are actually trolling, Leaky caldron. Bishonen | talk 21:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC).

Trolling does not necessarily equate to untruth. Dumuzid (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Hoping to see you back soon[edit]

MPants, please be aware that you can get the block lifted when you feel ready to come back to editing, by following the instructions in the template above. And I know that I speak for numerous editors when I say that I hope that you do! Really, this entire mess got way out-of-hand. I tried to put back some comments from some of us that I think you might have removed in anger, but was overruled. I do hope you will get the opportunity to read what I previously said here: [2]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to second this. After skimming the most recent ANI discussion, I have a fairly good idea of what probably got you this block. Don't let the harassers and trolls get to you like this, because that's only granting them a "win" and making the whole project even more toxic than it was before. Ignore them, don't talk about them, don't post about their off-wiki activities and don't do anything that could be perceived by someone who hasn't looked into the context as "calling them names". There's a reason your user essay was snow-kept and the admin who blocked you had less than 24 hours earlier been one of the editors who !voted to keep it; Wikipedia can be weird about this kinda stuff. We just have to live with it and work within the system -- 90% of the time it does work, after a fashion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Y'all might also be interested in signing this aka User:MjolnirPants/nonazis

-Pokerplayer513 (talk) 00:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm stopping by to make a few comments that I hope MPants will see. I've decided that I will not sign the nonazis page, and I'd like to explain why, in part because it might be useful to think about when considering a request to come back. I agree with the idea that Wikipedia should not tolerate hate speech. My problem is with calling it "fucking". When people like the trolling sock (or was it a socking troll?) who started all these dramas show up, it's entirely appropriate to shoot down their arguments in terms of content and policies, not to mention common sense, and to show them the door. But it gets tricky to personalize it, even for Nazis. And in particular, using the curse words that trigger a lot of people here, shifts the attention off of where it should be.

Also, I've seen a couple of editors referring to "suicide by admin". I'd prefer that editors not do that, because you probably don't know what was in MPants' mind. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Come back soon[edit]

The ban against you was unjust. You being upset at blatant pov pushing and a condescending attitude is understandable. That guy was an obvious sock. Get back to editing soon. - Pokerplayer513 (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Just pointing out that MjolnirPants is not banned. The idea of banning them has never been suggested. At the most extreme end of proposed sanctions they might have been blocked for a while until they acknowledged some suggestions from other editors, but an outright ban has never been on the table. The current oversight situation is an unfortunate side show. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the issue at ANI and "that guy" is not the reason for the indef block. The block is because of comments here which were oversighted and which we cannot now see. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:37, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Given the history here (and with the caveat that I cannot see the oversighted edits) the possibility exists that MJP did the Wikipedia equivalent of Suicide by cop and committed "Suicide" by administrator.

It would not surprise me if MJP emailed the blocking admin and requested that his user pages be courtesy blanked and possibly protected. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I remember the edits in question, and (without saying exactly what they were) I could imagine a user seeing the edits as a statement of "either this problem needs to be fixed or I need to go." (Both happened).

The original block disabled his email, so I don't think he emailed a request for a courtesy blank. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

If you're referring to me, they did not. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say that he did, but rather that he might. I know I would ask for a courtesy blanking if I blanked a page, had TPA revoked, and my comments re-appeared. Technical question: Does revoking email mean that he can't send emails to an admin who otherwise accept emails? Does it mean that he can't receive emails through Wikipedia? I just checked, and the "Email this user" form still comes up (I didn't try actually sending, because I don't want to bother him with a test email). --Guy Macon (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: When it became an Oversight block, his email was re-enabled, probably because the only way to appeal his block now is through the Oversight and/or Arbitration Committees. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The setting prevents sending email through the "email this user" form. I don't know if it prevents access to the form (I suspect not) but disables its functionality I'm assuming on the server end, so probably you could still type out an email in the form, you would then get an error message and your email would not be sent. It does not, for example, prevent a user from opening their mail app, typing in the known email address of an administrator (or other user), and pushing send. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I just want to clarify something that comes out of Guy Macon's observations. If hypothetically anyone had communicated onsite that MPants had made an additional request via email to an admin or oversighter that his talk page be kept blank, I would never have put anything back. That's an entirely different kind of situation than what actually appears to have happened. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• I re-enabled the email function when I took over the block as an OS block because email is the only way to appeal them, and I wanted to enable appeal via the system email function. I’ve also stated this on the list, but I’ll state it here if MPants is watching; he is also free to email any individual oversighter about this block (including myself as the blocking one, and I’d forward to the list). I have not received an email from him, but can’t speak to anyone else. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Butting in, like everyone else, but: Can ya'll just stop? There is no reason to be going over all this stuff on a blocked user's talkpage. Butting out. Arkon (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Ditto, oh and MP, for real though, come back soon. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 00:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. EEng 00:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

What a senseless drama fest! I confess I just came here to enjoy your red page notice one last time before its predictable demise. Be big, be bold and be back! — JFG ^talk 01:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed on "come back soon!" I say that as the one who MfD'ed the editnotice, not expecting all this weird shitshow, like the oversighting and indef stuff. The MfD wasn't a hostile action, it's simply not possible to raise an issue with you about that editnotice's effects – when the editnotice itself demands no criticism of any kind except at a noticeboard – other than by taking the matter to the noticeboard for editnotices. I was actually trying to comply with it even while objecting to it! Was also fully expecting you back within hours, since your short-term block was almost up – and it was bogus to begin with, being punitive rather than preventative. Blargh.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I just noticed the recent events. I also hope that you come back, MjolnirPants, but that you take all the time off you need. —PaleoNeonate – 08:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

So sorry to see this. I too would like to see this user come back, but since he's indefinitely blocked, how is that supposed to happen? Jonathunder (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. What he would do, if he wants to, is to privately email ArbCom, asking for an unblock. In case he is watching here, I'll add that I would hope that he would read and think about WP:AAB before making that request. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Notice of discussion[edit]

I have opened a discussion at WP:AN#Review of re-block. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

For the benefit of any talk-page watchers: the outcome of this AN discussion from Feb. 2019 can be seen at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive307#Review of re-block. A further thread on Tryptofish's user talk page (discussing the result) is at User talk:Tryptofish#Post-ANI, re MJP. EdJohnston (talk) 03:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Note[edit]

Hope you're having a happy new year so far. Hopefully the weather down there is better than it is up here, and I trust you and your family are doing well. GMG^talk 15:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

If you're out there anywhere, my friend, I hope that you will see this: [3]. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)