User talk:MjolnirPants

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)

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

February 2019

You have been blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges in relation to information which has been removed from Wikipedia's public records.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-enwikimedia.org.

---

Administrators: Information which has been oversighted was considered when this block was placed. Therefore the Oversight team or the Arbitration Committee must be consulted before this block can be removed. Administrators undoing oversight blocks without permission from an oversighter risk having their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee (per this announcement).

 -- TonyBallioni (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Note

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

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

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

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

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

• 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)