Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:08, 13 May 2021

Music

This is a place for anyone to share a music of a song that's worth sharing. Youtube links are preferred, but not necessary. I ask that you not post anything behind a pay-wall.

If you decide to add a new genre, please start a new column (with Template:col-break), and please search the "other cool music" column for songs that belong in the new genre to move them there.

February 2019

arbcom-enwikimedia.org

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 Misplaced Pages'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)

@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 (/_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: – 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

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: . --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; Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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

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 (/_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 Misplaced Pages 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 (/_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 Misplaced Pages? 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 (/_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 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

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 Misplaced Pages: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

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 15:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

FYI

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

And this: . --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Unblocked

I've unblocked this account and MPants at work. I know there's some other declared alts I've missed, so let me know here and I'll get to them when I'm back online (or any admin can lift them as having the consent of an oversighter to lift the block.) TonyBallioni (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• Welcome back! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• 💃🍻🎉🥳 Yay!!! Glad your back!! Captain Kirk says hello!! Atsme 💬 📧 00:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• Woohoo! If I knew you were coming I'd have baked a cake. It's great to see you're back! nagualdesign 00:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The strawberries and chocolate look delicious, along with a couple of packs of fags just for decoration. nagualdesign 23:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• @TonyBallioni: you win :) Glad to have you back, MPants! Ivanvector (/_Edits) 01:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• Wow, world famous editor MjolnirPants aka MPants at work aka Yeshua AKA Jesus is back? What a throwback Moneytrees🏝️ 05:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages needs editors like you. Welcome back! — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 08:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• Welcome back! I would not have baked you a cake, but you can have some of my home-smoked ham. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• Great to have you back! Anarchyte (talk • work) 16:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey - great to see you back MP. Nice to come across a bit of good news for a change. :) GirthSummit _(blether) 16:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

(Actual serious response for anyone interested) I saw things were getting a bit better in terms of less crossover between the motivated bad political actors and the editing of conspiracy theory/pseudoscience articles, so I made my promises not to dox any more pedophile Nazis. I figure that's a promise that should be easy enough to keep. Not that there's any shortage of them, it's just that most aren't smart enough to need doxxing; they'll get themselves indeffed soon enough without my help. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• +1 GMG 17:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

wild garlic

• +1 - if you don't like cake how is this? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Pretty, and tasty. I recommend blending them with rapeseed oil, walnuts and vintage cheddar for a delicious pesto. Mmm... GirthSummit _(blether) 18:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

No basil? Well, I think I've just found a pesto I can finally get behind. (I hate basil.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Basil? No way. I love basil, but it would be completely overshadowed, this packs a real kick in the (M) pants. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Its because you are using Cheddar instead of parmesan. Cheddar would fight with the basil but parmesan complements it. While I can forgive the replacement of parmesan with cheddar (if you are not using basil, you could theoretically use any mature hard cheese of preference) I cannot, under any circumstances, countenence the replacement of virgin olive oil with rapeseed oil. Its an abomination. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

An abomination it may be, but it's a damned tasty one. You get some really nice rapeseed oils these days, very nutty and subtle. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

• Welcome back. Refreshed I hope, and just the right amount of reinvigorated. 😉 SPECIFICO talk 20:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

  +1. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• Welcome back! -- Valjean (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• Welcome back indeed, and a pop-tart: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EErY75MXYXI —PaleoNeonate – 23:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• Welcome back! Liz 05:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
• Me too! Doug Weller talk
• Good to have you back! Ian.thomson (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
• I also am glad to see you back. Cardamon (talk) 02:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
• Woah. Welcome back! Grayfell (talk) 07:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
• A pleasant surprise to see your username again. Welcome back! BlackcurrantTea (talk) 15:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I just wanted to say thank you to everyone who welcomed me back. I honestly expected my return to go mostly under the radar as it were, and it's heartwarming to see so many people happy to see me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Seeing your username in my Watchlist was heartwarming. I hope to see The Quixotic Potato there one day too. nagualdesign 17:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• I was delighted to see your name on my watchlist today, welcome back! GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
• Welcome back. I don't believe we've interacted directly, and my motivation is broader than just welcoming you, individually. It's also to say that it cheers me that the verbiage about an indefinite block not necessarily being an infinite block, actually works out sometimes, and therefore might also apply to a couple of others, who I hope to see back as well, one day. Enjoy your welcome party! Mathglot (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe we have, though I've seen your handle and my hind brain tells me it was on some good edits (templates? I think). Thanks, I'm glad to be back. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• One needs a strong stomach to see how sausage is made. Don't let it change you. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• I know I'm kinda late to the party, but holy shit, this is ... pretty damn good news! squirrelking was wrong -- the pants weren't dead after all! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
• Just saw your name pop up at ANI. Had no idea you were back, but glad to see it! Grandpallama (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Precious

understanding of metal

Thank you for quality article The Dresden Files short fiction, for edit summaries for posterity ("the lead is short, but it hits every point in the article, which is also quite short") and understanding, for resilience and metal music, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2582 of Precious, a prize of QAI, aka the cabal of the outcast. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Accusations

Would you be so kind as to share the diffs to support your wild accusations of misrepresentation, bald-faced lies, and racism? Stonkaments (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Stonkaments: Oh, those accusations were anything but wild. If you have a problem with it, go ahead and complain at ANI, at which point I'll come with dozens, if not hundreds of diffs and links to WP:NOFUCKINGNAZIS and WP:CRUSH for all those uninvolved admins to ruminate on. But do not post this kind of crap to my talk page again. In fact, don't post anything to my talk page again. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Conspiracies, wikiracism and bald-faced lies!

Sorry what was the question again I forgot — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• We have plenty of pictures of cloudless sunny days. Still possible we could redirect this article. Like...remember when e-cards were a thing? Your great-aunt just got dial up and she wanted everyone to know. GMG 22:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: The more I browse through that talk page's archives (looking for consensus discussions and RfCs), the more I think you've got the right idea. We should redirect it to Special:random. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• Well, I just went back over MPants' edits (from both accounts) over the past several days, and (not seeing any diffs in the OP's post here), it seems to me, that if we're speaking of accusations, then there really ought to be something to back up the accusation being made against MPants here. I see this: , which does not strike me as incorrect, and I'm really only seeing a WP:BOOMERANG here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• The "accusations" (it was only one, and it was addressed at Stonk's comment, not stonk themselves) in question happened here, in which I characterized Stonk's description of their months-long push against the consensus at Race and intelligence as somewhere between "gross misrepresentation of what happened" and "bald-faced lies about what the sources and other editors said". And I absolutely stand by that, as there's at least one claim in the edit I referred to which Stonk has previously admitted was false. Stonk also has months of refusing to accept the consensus, constantly re-litigating a claim which Stonk claims not to actually believe and going out of their way to endorse and support disruptive editors under his belt, as well.

I really wanted to avoid heading to the drama boards so soon after coming back, but right now, if I want to actually improve this project, I need to at least give serious consideration to asking that Stonk be topic banned in response to their constant sealioning. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

huh? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 10:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

You know, I actually saw that, and I didn't think for a minute that it was an accusation that matched the opening post here. Saying that someone else's statement is misleading, even in the extreme, is just how users with opposing views agree or disagree at AE. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Can one of you guys explain the connection? Call me dumb (you won't be the first), but I'm not seeing how that ANI section relates to this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll try to explain if you can tell me which one I am: a leftard, or a libtard. (I wanna be both.) That was an IP who was edit warring to make brain size to say that brain size varies with skin color. (I guess size matters.) The IP was also saying that the scientific consensus was being challenged by lots of new re-surch. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Tryptofish, your answer sounds much intelligenter than how I would've explained the connection. Cookie for you. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:06, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Yummy! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

(ec)So it was just a comparison of a similar (if less civil) POV pusher. Got it, you libtard leftard. Speaking of which, anyone want to create a new usercat:Libtards? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Fish no like cats. But I can just imagine the resulting WP:CFD. Don't mess with the category nazis police! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Last I heard, the category popo lost their leader. A little fish told me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

But little cat-tards keep popping up like dandelions or zombies or something. You know the cliché about "those who can, do, and those who can't, teach". This is like "those who can create content do, and those who can't police Da Rulez." Probably on the spectrum or something... oh, wait a minute, sorry... --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• I absolutely agree that Stonkaments' disruption has reached the level where a t-ban would be appropriate. For context though, you might want to be aware that they have been getting encouragement from a more experienced editor, Ferahgo the Assassin, who was previously topic-banned from R&I. According to this talk page thread, where the most recent update occurred just yesterday, Feragho is planning to launch another RfC on race and intelligence soon, in coordination with the publication of a paper she thinks will turn the tide. Generalrelative (talk) 02:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm honestly starting to wonder if it isn't time to take this to Arbcom. This was a problem 2 years ago. It's still a problem, and it's stemming now (as then) from a small group of editors who are determined to undermine the consensus of not just WP, but of the scientific community. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Realistically Arbcom are not going to do anything other than sanction the obvious socks and worst offenders as a short term solution. Actually getting a long term resolution for the topic would require banning the scientific racism proponents, but it would require them to take a position on the content of the article. And if they started to do that, it would be open season for every topic area where you have miniorities to the generally accepted consensus pushing their fringe views. We are talking politics, gun control etc. And with the exception of maybe Beeblebrox, I doubt any of the current Arbcom, like their forebears, are willing to stick their neck out that far. Arbcom seems to have forgotton its job is to resolve disputes that the community is unable to handle. Its job isnt to sweep it under the carpet until a later time. Which is what almost always happens with content disputes. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

That tracks with my expectations of Arbcom. I imagine it as sort of a tactical nuke: they'll destroy the deployed forces on both sides, and completely ignore the reserves.

I imagine that the worst of the PUV pushers will be banned, along with the editors who've been most frustrated by them, topic bans handed out to 1 or 2 others (including to editors who've been defending the accuracy of the article) and 1 or 2 more editors will be "admonished".

And there's the issue of the nature of the problem, as you pointed out. Arbcom will apparently need to take a side on a topic matter, which carries a whole host of problems. But this is also where I'm wondering if this situation is different, because the sources are quite clear (the APA commissioned a publication specifically to address the core content question here of "what is the scientific consensus" and no-one has ever presented a source that argues with that which has anywhere near the weight of it), yet one side is determined to minimize or alter what we say about the same question. It's less of a content dispute and more of a content policy dispute. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

My advice to anyone considering ArbCom is: don't. There are existing discretionary sanctions for Race and Intelligence, so make use of those. (If the situation gets bad enough, consider a structured RfC on the issue of scientific consensus, modeled on WP:GMORFC, where the outcome will be "this is what the community already decided, so stuff it".) But if ArbCom takes a case, they end up slamming the hammer down on anyone who has said anything intemperate: if the opposition can find the right diff, that will be taken out of context and used against you. Too much collateral damage. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't much mind the thought of being sanctioned myself. Hell, I've considered getting myself re-blocked on and off since about the second day after I came back.

But there are good editors on that talk page who've expressed very understandable frustration at the non-stop POV push and repetitive arguments. This is why I'm torn. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Don't. Put the mouse down, and step slowly away from the keyboard. Take anyone who makes trouble to WP:AE. Don't ask for ECP. Ask for a topic ban. Rinse and repeat. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to take anyone anywhere and ask for anything. The thought of starting a new ANI or AE or Arbcom thread makes me want to punch my monitor. I just want to make conspiracy theory and pseudoscience related articles better.

And so far, for all the stupidity on the talk page, there hasn't been much edit warring in the article, so knock on wood it stays that way. The article is so much better now than it was back when Deleet was trying to WP:OWN it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, the very best advice I can give anyone is just to edit other stuff, and leave the drama-prone topics to someone else. For me, editing GMOs got to be disheartening, whereas editing an article about a big garden with pretty roses was genuinely fun. Substitute whatever works for you for those roses. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

In fact, getting back to the aforementioned IP at brain size, all that I did, myself, was really just this. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I just remembered something that you can do, short of taking someone to a noticeboard. There is Template:Ds/alert. In the case of race and intelligence, you would go to the user talk page (no more than once per year!) and post {{subst:alert|r-i}} there. In fact, you have to do that before you can take anyone to AE, and they can only be sanctioned for anything they do after you post the alert to them. But the reality is that, for all but the most determined trouble-makers, just getting the notice tends to make them back down. It's a quick edit, totally by-the-rules, and it often gets the job done. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I think this guy's been notified within the past year already, but in any case, like I said above: I'm not going to move on the drama boards unless I have to, and right now, I don't seem to have to. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I checked, and he has been notified in the past year. And how ironic: he is clearly watching here, in a way that may well put him on the wrong side of WP:HOUND, and per the last four edits to this page, just before mine, now, you are now notified too. Seems like I've been a great help here, wink, wink. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, I think those 3 edits since I told them to stay away from my talk are enough to get them sanctioned, depending on the admin who comes across it. Speaking of which, Stonk had better hope Bish isn't reading this. I wouldn't even need to file a complaint, considering how proactive and decisive she is. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not reading anything. I'm officially asleep. Bishonen | tålk 22:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC).

In the long run, giving him a short block will be worth less than a topic ban resulting from accumulated evidence, of which this would be just one piece. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Of course, that's very true. On the other hand, a short block now would clearly establish a battleground mentality, which would make the topic ban easier to get.

Of course, all of that ignores the fact that I don't actually want to pursue sanctions against this editor or any of their cohorts. I don't even really want someone else to get them sanctioned, or even for them to just go away and leave this topic alone. All I really want is for them to acknowledge that the horse is dead. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

If someone is pressing your buttons (whether knowingly or unknowingly), bad things tend to happen. I don't think any of us is really immune to it. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Roxy the dogtard . wooF 07:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Edit-conflict

At the ID talk page, I believe I've messed up a post you made. Could you look? THX -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

It did, but honestly all you removed was some warning advice (which might have escalated things) and an olive branch (intended to offset the former). It's probably better this way. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

OK good. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I know it's not a vote, but...

The current !vote count at Talk:Race and intelligence#RfC on racial hereditarianism is at:

• Yes 33.
• No 2, maybe 3.

Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, if anyone needed (more) evidence that ECP on that page was a good thing, check this out. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Fun fact: that editor's first contribution is a defense of female genital mutilation: . Quite a charmer. Generalrelative (talk) 03:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Seems about right. There will come a point, very soon, when someone won't be able to take their shenanigans anymore, and I think we all know which direction that ANI thread is going. Until then, enjoy the show. I actually laughed out loud when I saw the links they provided in that edit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Tryptofish the clairvoyant puts fin to forehead and makes a Delphic prediction: I predict that the closing consensus when the RfC eventually ends will reflect that !vote trend. And once that happens, just tell anyone who wants to claim the contrary that they should see that RfC and recognize that the issue has been decided by the community. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I can already tell you that you have a better track record than Nostradamus. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

And much better looking! But didn't he bat 0.000? That's a pretty low bar to beat. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey, don't be a sore winner, now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm much better looking. The end. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I can honestly say that I've never laid awake at night, picturing the curve of Nostrodamus' lips and the deep color of his eyes.

Of course, I haven't really done that for you, either, but I've certainly never done it for Nostodamus. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Now I'm going to lie awake, gagging at that thought... --Tryptofish (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Don't be silly. I'm sure that the gentle swaying of your esca will lull you into a deep slumber in no time. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

LOL, got me! I had to look up what an esca is. What an escapade this has been! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• Apparently I'm not the worst admin in the world and I actually am a competent judge of community consensus in line with policy. Whodathunkit. Also, hi. I've been away from wiki these days — I'm settling in to the old functionary chiming in when shit is hitting the fan state of wiki-life — but very happy to see you're still doing good work :) TonyBallioni (talk) 01:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey, you unblocked me. I don't think anyone could blame you for keeping a low profile after a move like that. ;) I'm sure glad to see your name on my watchlist. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

That's nothing. He even unblocked me. EEng 00:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Dear god! Tony's depravity knows no bounds... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Attention talk page stalkers

I'm considering starting an RfC on placing a moratorium on debates about the scientific consensus, unless and until an editor can bring recent (since the RfC last year) high quality sources that make explicit statements about "the science" or "the consensus" changing. Any thoughts or advice would be appreciated. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

It probably isn't worth the trouble, assuming the existing RfC keeps going this way. There are already DS, so once the new RfC has a consensus, any trouble-maker can be reverted with an edit summary of "per RfC", and taken to 3RRN or AE if they edit war about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: What would your thoughts about an editnotice that links to the various discussions be? Or a talk page hat note. I've seen FYIs work well on other controversial subjects. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

That's a good idea. An alternative might be an FAQ banner like they have over at Talk:Fascism. Something similar was suggested by Hemiauchenia recently. Generalrelative (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I think I'll get started on writing the FYI. I'll post a link at talk as soon as it's in a state to be edited by multiple editors. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:44, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I strongly support any and all of those alternatives. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• I started a draft of an FYI at User:MjolnirPants/RnI FYI. I've got it to the point where I need input. I'm pretty sure it's not ready right now to be implemented and could stand to be improved (we need to gather up a consensus, first, anyways).

Also, I have written up a brief explanation/analogy of the genetics at User:MPants at work/sandbox, if anyone would like to take a look at that and make any improvements. I think we might be able to incorporate a link to that somewhere in the FYI, or maybe do something else with it.

In both cases, please just go ahead and make your edits, and we'll talk about them here if there's any disagreement that can't be sussed out in a couple of edit summaries. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants

Tell me all about it. 21:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Things I think need to be changed (though I'm not going to be doing so right away because I'm too busy):

• We should probably link the two big RfCs, as well as the close review on the first. I also have a text file with links to other related discussions.
• We should probably explain the actual consensus: we're treating the claims of a genetic link between race and intelligence as a fringe theory. We're not dismissing the notion of heritability entirely, nor dismissing any link between race and intelligence.
• It probably needs a "so why do different races have different average IQ scores" question.
• It might stand to be less conversational in tone. I wrote it in a stream-of-consciousness style, by coming up with a question that seemed to lead from the last answer, and then just letting my mind wander and typing out everything that came into it which wasn't about punching Neo-Nazis, smacking clueless wikipedians upside their heads and purple octopi dancing in a garden full of cute kittens growing on trees and licorice grass. Yeah, it gets pretty weird in there sometimes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

_{Friendly talkpage stalker here..."purple octopi dancing in a garden full of cute kittens growing on trees and licorice grass" is just marvelous! Glad you are back! Best wishes, Tribe of Tiger 03:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)}

I've just made my revisions. I, too, think that linking to RfCs, especially in the FAQ, is important. In fact, it may be more important than the rest of what already is there. Now, as I think I understand it, the FAQ is intended to appear at the top of the article talk page, and the sandbox piece is intended to become a userspace essay. Is that right? What I'm thinking is that the people who are trolls or racist POV-pushers are the ones who are the least likely to bother reading anything that explains stuff. For them, the most effective and efficient message is: this is what Misplaced Pages has already decided, and that's the end of the discussion. (And I, too, love the purple octopi et al.) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Now, as I think I understand it, the FAQ is intended to appear at the top of the article talk page, and the sandbox piece is intended to become a userspace essay. Is that right? Yes to the first, I don't know to the second. It's extremely focused, and probably needs more work, but I thought it might make for a collapsed answer at the bottom of the FAQ, an essay, or something else.

I like your revisions to the FAQ, by the way. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev

Seems unlikely though. Doug Weller talk 19:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Thanks for this. I'm gonna comment there shortly. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

User:MjolnirPants, User:Doug Weller - Old sockmasters never die. They just knit new socks. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

In this case, the sock didn't seem to fit his foot very well, which is actually good news. But there will be more. I'm personally excited to see what the next round of usernames-threatening-me-with-execution will be, considering my participation in the process that now makes it impossible for him to engage in jackassery on one of his favorite articles. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Marvel Cinematic Universe

Thank you. We need a few more volunteers, and that case needed a volunteer. (Well, it still needs one, and it has one.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Wade

Thanks for your well-reasoned, policy-based points at Talk:Nicholas Wade. I disagree with Bonewah's arguments—and particularly object to his recent edit to the article—but I don't think his removal resembled trolling and want to urge you to take that statement back. I'm guessing this conversation will take a while, and early aspersions can escalate. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: I was trying to make the point that it was an atrociously bad edit (in the vein of Poe's law), not accusing Bonewah of actually trolling. However, if you read it as that sort of accusation, then it stands to reason I didn't communicate that well enough. I'll edit my comment to be more clear. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Not sure how relevant this is to the current discussion, but I just saw that Wade is now pushing another popular fringe theory (in the pages of the NY Post no less): "The theory that COVID-19 escaped from a lab may not be so far-fetched" (can't link because the site is blacklisted). Wondering if his writing on this topic might belong in his BLP too. See also his article on thebulletin.org, "The origin of COVID: Did people or nature open Pandora’s box at Wuhan?" (apparently this site is blacklisted too). Just a thought. Generalrelative (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm seeing that too! I had a moment of shock at how jaded I am about COVID misinformation that my first thoughts on seeing the news results were, "Ugh, this complicates the search for coverage of his book." Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Edit war

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. The owner of all ✌️ 22:08, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Wikipedians who should probably stop screwing around with categories, lest they draw unwanted attention from the Categories Police
• Wikipedians with red-linked categories on their user talk page
• People paid by Big Pharma/Big Government/Big Science/Big Skepticism/Big Atheism to shill
• Wikipedians who are secretly one of "Them"
• Abusive, mean, petty Wikipedians
• Wikipedians who are "out to get you" and/or your garage band
• Wikipedians who have had the appearance of their user page modified against their will