Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:MjolnirPants/Editnotice

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete . Consensus is that this notice is not consistent with the expectations set at WP:TPG. No prejudice against creation of a guideline-compliant editnotice in the future if the editor in question is unblocked. RL0919 (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

User talk:MjolnirPants/Editnotice

User talk:MjolnirPants/Editnotice (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Grossly inappropriate, and incompatible with how WP operates (and why). This is against WP:TPG + WP:NOBAN, WP:OWN (+ WP:NOT#WEBHOST, WP:UP#OWN), WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:POLEMIC, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:DR, WP:GAMING, WP:BITE, WP:UPIMPROPER, WP:WIN, WP:CIR, and the rules for WP:ANI, all at once. Also arguably qualifies for WP:G4.

In detail:

The very nature of the editnotice is a generalized, outright hostility-by-default towards all other editors. This is a clear violation of both the WP:Civility and WP:AGF policies. That by itself is a sufficient rationale for deletion, but there are many others. One cannot ban all other editors from using one's talk page for legitimate purposes Hell, you can't actually ban a single editor from doing this; demands like "never post to my talk page again" are not enforceable, and cannot be used to evade appropriate warnings, required notices, etc.; they're requests. Breaching of them for explicitly harassing purposes will be used as evidence of that harassment, and that's about it). This is covered at WP:TPG, and in more detail at WP:NOBAN: "a user cannot avoid ... appropriate project notices and communications by merely demanding their talk page not be posted to" (emphasis added). The primary purpose of user talk pages is for editors to raise and resolve concerns with other editors without bogging down article talk pages in off-topic personal chitchat and strife. It isn't permissible to deny the entire editorial community one of its basic and necessary tools simply because, say, you don't like being disagreed with or criticized. "And resolve" is important; it requires discussion. Trying to effectively disable the prescribed place to hold that discussion transgresses WP:GAMING (specifically the section "Gaming the consensus-building process"). Various processes actually require such a user-talk discussion before they can be invoked (see WP:DR#Discuss with the other party, and specific rules of various process pages). No editor should be made to feel they have no recourse in an everyday editing dispute or concern, just because MjonirPants gives them only a binary choice of remaining silent or building a block- or ban-worthy ANI case that proves long-term disruption or short-term vandalism. This is another one of those "Wikipedia is not a suicide pact" common sense matters. Your talk page does not belong to you, as a matter of clear policy at WP:OWN and WP:NOT#WEBHOST and WP:UP#OWN. It belongs to the community. So MjolnirPants does not have the authority to limit other editors' options in the first place. But only WP policy experts are going to be certain of that. The editnotice's specific demand to take every complaint to WP:ANI (basically an "I dare you to try to stop me" challenge – WP:WIN), is against ANI's own instructions and scope (and enforcement). ANI is for community examination of long-term patterns of problem behavior, and for effective emergencies. If anyone actually tried to do what MjolnirPants demands, they would get sanctioned for bringing trivial content-dispute matters and other off-topic concerns to the main site-wide noticeboard. Using ANI for anything is expensive of editorial/community time and productivity, and there are thus rules about it, enforced with WP:BOOMERANG. Whether intended or not, the editnotice constitutes a trap (GAMING again), especially for newer editors who do not know better (WP:BITE). The apparent just-not-getting-it about why talk pages even exist, plus extreme territoriality, and declaration that everything but praise and jokes will be immediately deleted without being read or responded to, are actually evidence of a WP:CIR problem, like the civility issues that keep getting MjolnirPants into trouble (though only one block for it so far). The community permitting this editnotice to continue (in anything like this form) would be enabling of such problematic behavior to continue and to escalate. This isn't okay, on its face. It's also not okay because such interaction-style problems are often fixable with a little time and effort. It's not okay to use userspace for "advocacy or support of grossly improper behaviors with no project benefit"; abuse of "expensive" process (like ANI) for trivial purposes qualifies (though it is not among the list of examples at WP:UPIMPROPER, which could not reasonably list every imaginable such improper behavior all on one line). It's also inconsistent with the same guideline's "User pages that look like project pages" section, but inverting it on its ear (if it's not okay for a userspace page to serve as a WP formal process, it's not okay for formal process like ANI to be substituted for what consensus actually demands, that usertalk be used for inter-editor dispute resolution. Nor is it proper for a userspace editnotice to masquerade as some kind of official WP notice, which is apt to fool many newer editors.) Talk page discussion is a prerequisite to almost all of Wikipedia's venues of higher dispute resolution. Added: As someone noted below, this is actually re-creation of a previously deleted editnotice that had the same tone and intent, but just also had some swear words in it. We recently had an RfC that concluded that such words are not what makes or don't make something an interaction problem; from that analysis standpoint, the pages are functionally identical. This could thus probably have been speedily deleted per WP:G4. In short, there is no project-facing purpose of any kind in MjolnirPants's hostile-to-all-comers and anti-consensus editnotice remaining in place. This is against multiple policies and guidelines (including more obvious ones like WP:POLEMIC, and of course WP:Consensus and how it forms). A general MfD principle is that material, even in userspace, that is outright antithetical to WP's community norms and its policies and procedures should be deleted. (We've generally made an exception for {{Retired}} rants, but they're final statements of emotional feeling, which pretty much no one reads, while this is engineered to actively thwart communication from all other editors, on a daily basis.) I don't want this analysis itself to seem polemical; it's just detailed. I'm concerned with effects, not with any imaginable motivations. For all I know, MjolnirPants intended this all as some kind of joke and expects no one to take it seriously. The problem is that people will – nothing about it suggests it's in jest – and it's apt to inspire others to create their own "STFU" editnotices.

Obviously, the page per se could be kept, if overhauled to no longer present any such problems. And if deleted, there should be no prejudice against re-creating an editnotice for the editor's talk page, if it doesn't have such problems. (I.e., it should not be WP:SALTed, in my view.)

PS: MjolnirPants (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is presently blocked on civility grounds for 31 hours from 03:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC) update: for outing, indefinitely, so extend the MfD a little to compensate, I guess. For my part, I consider MjolnirPants a constructive editor ("UNNOTHERE"? "ACTUALLYHERE"?), and we're frequently in agreement on various content and internal matters. There's no personal-dispute motivation for this MfD; I was just shocked (to a "WTF?" level) by the editnotice and its contents when I went to the editor's talk page.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC); revised, 01:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

For the benefit of those reading this after the edit notice's deletion, the text of the edit notice is: "S T O P ! ! ! If you came here to whine about my behavior, don't bother. I will delete your comments and point to this edit notice as the reason why. If you have a problem with me, you can whine about me at ANI or you can just put on your big boy pants and suck it up. Yes, this applies to admins, too. If you came here to talk about this project, or just to leave a friendly note, joke, comment or a witty remark, then welcome." --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete very bitey editnotice. CoolSkittle (talk) 02:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete this editor needs to become more civil and this notice gives the opposite message Legacypac (talk) 05:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Agree with nominator, delete. An overhaul would have to be so extensive as to make it easier to start from a blank slate. This overtly hostile edit notice is an enabler for the user's chronic civility issues. Fish+Karate 09:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. Negative contribution, bad faith. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Absolutely unacceptable in a collaborative project. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete, or as a compromise, Userfy to User:MjolnirPants/Complaints department (or something similar). I found it funny (in the vein of Monty Python and the Holy Grail, I wondered what would follow the spanking) but the people who it's designed for won't get the joke and will react accordingly. Best drop it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete but explicitly permit recreation of a more civil editnotice in this location (to ward off WP:G4 issues). Editors are entitled to demand civility on their talk pages and to remove comments which don't comply. But this particular version is all the bad acronyms that have already been written here and should be tossed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete (edit conflict) Basically agree with Ritchie. Definitely not "bad faith", and someone who has been trolled and harassed as much as MPants has (seriously, requesting a three-month self-block because one is sick frivolous ANI threads opened by sock-trolls, which are followed up on by more similar threads opened by hounds once the sock-trolls are blocked, and then two weeks later the exact same thing happens again!?) has every right to be frustrated with the amount of harassment he gets on his talk page and tell the harassers to stay away. But this edit notice is unlikely to make that problem any better. Agree with SMcC and F&K that a less-likely-to-be-taken-in-bad-faith version would be acceptable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  Change to Keep per Tryptofish. We can have this discussion if whatever led to the current block is resolved and MPants is unblocked, but right now this discussion feels extremely icky. MPants was (and hopefully still is) a good Wikipedian, who does not deserve the harassment he is getting from a significant number of editors who do not appear to be good Wikipedians, and we should not be granting them another "victory" under these circumstances. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Extended discussion of timing, collective lack of empathy, process vs. prediction, etc.

I drafted this before M'Pants was blocked (though didn't get around to posting it until after-the-fact, don't agree that the block was good – it has a punitive-not-preventative feel, and half expect it to be lifted before its formal expiration time). I don't disagree that M'Pants has been baited by someone recently, but that resulted in a block of said party even before M'Pants's rather incidental one; the other party's block was why I was going to M'Pants's talk page in the first place. The editnotice also markedly pre-dates (11 June 2018‎) that recent micro-drama. I do not believe that the reaction of commenters here would be different if starting this MfD had been delayed until after expiration of M'Pants's short-term block, and I did ask that the MfD be extended to account for it. While I'm not tracking editor interactions and may be missing some bad blood somewhere, I see that plenty of editors I e-know and whose judgment is generally good are commenting here (including with rationales I did not provide, like this being basically a re-creation of something that was administratively deleted before for the same kind of tone – I didn't even know about that). While a few comments like "a shocking display of bad faith" are unnecessarily combative, there clearly isn't some kind "anti-M'Pants troll conspiracy" owning this page. MfD is a site-wide process watchlisted by a lot of people.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC) Update: M'Pants now seem to be subjected to an indef, out of the blue, for unrelated reasons.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC) User:SMcCandlish - I don't think anyone here is intentionally malicious, but you don't need to be intentionally malicious to have a deficit in empathy, especially as a collective. Collectives in particular are very bad at empathy in particular. We would be much better off if more of us on average worked toward differentiating between problems that need to be solved now, from problems that need to be solved eventually, and consider whether the problem we need to solve really needs to be solved now, and how we would feel if we were part of that problem in the situation that an involved person might be. I don't blame MP for leaving, and I don't blame anyone in particular for driving him away, but I do think we had a very sub-par response to the entire situation as a community. If the response had been orchestrated by a single person, then it would be difficult to say it wasn't malicious. That it was the act of a collective doesn't mean it didn't have the same effect. GMGtalk 22:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC) I don't see any evidence that an MfD about an editnotice template had anything to do with M'Pants's "leaving" (he appears to have been blocked after posting something that had to be oversighted; I've seen someone refer to it as "suicide by admin", so it's unclear what happened – except to particular people). I don't disagree with your overall observation about group behavior, but we can't "not do" stuff just because someone might get hurt feelings. Otherwise we'd just shut down all the noticeboards and hope for the best. We have more important stuff to do than agonize about the timing of XfD filings. If we notice an XfDable page, we should strike while the iron is hot, since we're not likely to even remember about it an hour or a day later, thick in the middle of real WP:ENC work. I don't want to have to maintain a separate to-do list of XfD and other noticeboard stuff to come back to some other time just because of my assumptions about the moods of some other people. Finally, if someone really did quit or engineer their own forced departure, over an MfD in particular, that's a WP:HIGHMAINT matter. It's unfortunate, but we don't have control over other people's emotions. I'm empathetic more than you know, having quit WP for an entire year (other than responding to a few things when people e-mailed directly about them) over an "honor" matter that others considered trivial. Years later, hindsight tells me I was being a dork. In particular, the community concerns about what I was doing, how I was acting at the time were arguably legit, and the fact that it was addressed in a less than ideally sensitive manner (and with an accusation that was technically wrong) wasn't really an excuse to blow up and quit. So, I get why it can happen, but I don't think it requires us to suspend process to account for subjective "butthurt" to use M'Pants's own term. We can't actually predict who will have which reaction to what, at which time ,or why; we might not even predict our own reaction, or self-agree with it later.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Sorry to be late. I had to abandon my original reply to you during lunch yesterday because of a distraction, and didn't have the heart to rewrite it when I found time later. Anyway, to be clear, I wasn't talking about you. Your motives are clearly compatible with my own when I wrote my initial delete !vote; the problem is that MPants was subsequently blocked indefinitely—exactly what all the trolls harassing him have been gunning for for years—and at this point my original reasoning (that deleting the notice would take ammo away from said trolls) has been invalidated and deleting the page would only grant another victory to said harassers. You are clearly not one of them. Several of the others here who have also not retracted their delete !votes clearly are not either. But it doesn't really matter if good-faith editors are !voting for a proposal that, on its face, is neutral or even positive, but in effect would be disastrous for the project. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

There's no disaster for the project in deleting an unhelpful page, or in an obviously unhappy editor taking a short to permanent leave of absence (normal and probably necessary editorial turnover), nor in a troll thinking they "won" something when the community won't see it that way and will eventually ban their ass for being a troll. "A troll might like result A more than result B" isn't a reason to change a !vote (otherwise WP:DENY is meaningless and trolls pwn Wikipedia already). Trolls did not force M'Pants to do what led to the indef (turns out that only the name was oversighted, so it's easy to examine, a WP:OUTING breach). All this is nothing to do with MfD; the question before us here is whether the page is a policy problem versus is there an encyclopedically constructive rationale for keeping it, regardless of any popularity contests or other drama going on in the background. PS: "deleting the notice would take ammo away from said trolls" will remain true long-term, when M'Pants returns. A temporary feeling by trolls that this has reversed is illusory. In reality it is and would always be a liability, because it could always be used to paint a picture of hostility and WP:CIR refusal to engage, even when the editor was actually willing to engage in article talk and other venues.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - A similar editnotice was an issue last year, for which MPants was warned that they were close to being blocked for. The fact that they waited for things to cool off and then re-created it is a shocking display of bad faith. This editor seems hellbent on crashing out of the community. ~Swarm~ {talk} 14:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @Swarm: Do you have a link to that discussion? PackMecEng (talk) 15:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
    • It appears to have been speedy-deleted by User:Bbb23. The text read <big>If you don't know whether or not this notice applies to you then you'd best just <br /><big><big><big>'''Fuck Right Off.</big></big></big>'''</big><br />I will revert anything unhelpful or unwanted the moment I notice it. I will not explain with anything more than than a pithy edit summary.<br/>ANI is [[WP:ANI|thataway]] if you want to get all butthurt about it.
      Nasty. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Ah I was hoping there was a previous discussion or consensus for it. The list of policies cited above are rather thin to put it nicely and I am not seeing a huge issue with the edit notice in general. I just see the same group of people complaining all over the place. PackMecEng (talk) 15:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Swarm is one of the good ones, so I didn't for a second doubt the veracity of the above claim, but I too was curious, so I checked the deletion log, then checked MPants's talk page history for edits by Bbb23 last March. The discussion was here, apparently spun out of a separate ANI thread. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, forgot to link to the discussion. You got the right one Hijiri, thanks. ~Swarm~ {talk} 15:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I did not doubting something happened. I was just hoping to read it over myself. Thank you for the link. PackMecEng (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete and salt. This editnotice is a clear beach of WP:CIVIL. It comes after a prev editnotice was deleted by User:Bbb23 in March 2018 as "disruptive", so there is no reason to expect that any future editnotice will be more civil. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: Given how many editors were explicit that this should not be salted (and I'll explicitly add my own straw to that pile) it seems a bit weird to request that in a manner that puts you in the minority. I've seen deletion discussions closed based on the opinion of a minority because it was theoretically similar to the clear consensus, which is why I'm stating that here. Also, you appear to have botched your ping of Bbb23 twice, although I'm pretty sure he has notifications turned off so it wouldn't have made a difference. Also, you did just recently leave "WP:ROPE" in MPants's block log after a quick and unanimous flood of editors told you to unblock, and definitely did not support your writing that in his block log, which makes this ... well, you're entitled to your opinion, but I certainly hope whoever ultimately deletes this page doesn't do something similar and cast a super-!vote by pretending the salting proposal is supported by the consensus. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I was stating my view that this should be salted, and I stand by it.

Whoever closes this page will make their own judgement on weighing the consensus against policy. I find it amusing that you presume to pronounce on the consensus when the discussion has been only for only ~12 hours. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete for his own sake but not for the sake of the above users who seemingly find it to be uncivil. While more pointed than most other edit notices, the only thing that is actually uncivil is the preloaded link to ANI. Everything else is fairly innocent in the land of the internet. I'm not buying the "collaborative argument" that some others have put forward as it is clear he has been on the receiving end of harassment and has been annoyed for some time. Additionally, I find it disappointing that the nominator has decided to pile on instead of reaching out to the owner to address their concerns. Nihlus 15:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Being on the receiving end of harassment is not a licence to pre-emptively abuse everyone who comes to leave a comment.
    And this isn't the land of the internet in general. It's not usenet and not some sort of flameboard and it's not Twiiter; it's a collaborative project to build an encyclopedia with core policies of consensus and civility.
    And please, spare us the "reach out" requests to an editor whose opener for every conversation was a warning to "Fuck off". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Your comment is seemingly in response to his original edit notice and not the one that we are looking at today. Please do not get them confused, as it appears you are wanting to delete this edit notice in response to how the first one made you feel. That is inappropriate. Nihlus 15:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Sigh. No confusion.
        My support for deleting the current editnotice is based on the current content, which says If you came here to whine about my behavior, don't bother. That blanket declaration that MJP will dismiss any complaint about their conduct is just a rewording of the old message, pre-emptively dismissing any complaint about conduct without considering whether it might be justified. That's an abusive stance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
        • A stance he is well within his right to take. It is hardly abusive. Nihlus 16:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
          • Not so. On a collaborative project, the pre-emptive dismissal of conduct complaints without assessing them is a hostile stance. Editors are required to assume good faith until demonstrated otherwise, and MJP's editnotice is a blanket dismissal of the good faith of any editor who raises a complaint.
            Given the amount of abuse that MJP spews out, it effectively claiming a licence to abuse without reproach. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @Nihlus:, it obviously would not have been possible to reach out to M'Pants to address the concerns when the entire point of the e-notice is that zero concerns will ever be read or acknowledged unless filed as a noticeboard case. That's exactly why we're here at a noticeboard (albeit not ANI).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Considering the dialogue that many other members of the community were attempting to create with MjolnirPants, your comment is clearly false. An attempt to reach out is different than successfully reaching out, and you failed to even try. Instead, you chose to pile on and exacerbate the mess that we already had instead of attempting to deescalate the situation. I won't cast aspersions, but the timing of this MfD and how this situation was handled by so-called experienced editors couldn't have been any worse. Nihlus 04:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
      • And look how that turned out: "more and more fucking nazis damn near every time I log in ... I'm not going to respond to the dozens of moronic opinions expressed here and at ANI ... the idiots making those comments will still be idiots." [1] I don't even care about the tone (angry people have a slight tendency to sound angry); I'm just showing the refuse to engage. If I observe that attempts to reach out to this editor (especially in user talk) are not successful, I'm under no obligation to try the same thing the same exact way when there are other methods, and the editor himself demands another approach. If we have evidence that a user's editnotice saying they will not respond to critical material in user talk, only a noticeboard, is accurate, then taking the editnotice to a noticeboard is the WP:Common sense solution to both problems at once. See also principles like WP:DUCK and WP:SPADE and WP:PACT, written about more directly disruptive matters, but the principle holds: We are not required to try the same things over and over again yet expect different results.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
        • It only turned out that way due to the actions of the community, including you. That is exactly the point I am trying to make. Nihlus 04:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

          That's tautology, a form of circular reasoning. Everything that happens on WP between 2+ editors is the WP community collectively doing stuff; we are the community and the community is us. We individually own our own emotions and remain responsible for how we act. (Just like someone trolling M'Pants got sanctioned at ANI just a couple of days ago, remember?)

Deets:

Every result of editorial interaction, whether we applaud it or not, is "due to the actions the community", but we can't disclaim responsibility for our own individual parts in them. There is no hive mind to hide behind and blame. "The community" did not force M'Pants to write a hostile-to-everyone-but-best-buddies editnotice (twice), to describe in colorful detail the violent things he'd like to do to people (cause of the short block, which was iffy because it was no actual threat but obvious hyperbole for sarcastic effect, though was borderline uncivil), or to "out" and libel someone (which was not joking in the slightest, and led to the indef). It's not like I'm offering a theoretical opinion: we know for a fact why the blocks were issued and why the earlier editnotice (same basic message, just with swear-words in it) was deleted. It's a matter of record. And, perhaps more the underlying point, the ANI actually resulted in the other party being sanctioned; there is no community conspiracy to stick it to M'Pants. M'Pants just, afterward, crossed a badly-needing-a-wikibreak line. When increasingly angry editors won't take their own breaks, one eventually gets imposed on them, and with long-term editors it usually actually works. Provides distance and time to re-examine perspective and priorities.

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

For the record, no, I did not expect you to admit any wrongdoing. I was merely pointing it out. Nihlus 04:49, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Non-responsive hand-waving is not an argument, so my rebuttal remains unrefuted.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Can you not see how writing things like When increasingly angry editors won't take their own breaks makes it look like you are just arguing in a vacuum and completely ignoring the context? MPants did take a three-month break, and the moment he came back the same trolls and sockpuppets and (yes) Nazis (I'm not going to link it, but one of the well-documented neo-Nazi canvassing threads on an external site explicitly mentioned him) jumped on him. Anyone would be angry at such a situation (if it weren't for the community refusing to deal with the harassment he was putting up with, he never would have had to take the break in the first place). On two separate occasions in the last week an admin waited until things had apparently cooled down to block him out of the blue. Regardless of the whether those two admins' actions could be justified, pretending like this was an editor with a problematic personality making no effort to simply let it go and walk away for a bit to cool down is ... well, it's demonstrably wrong, and if you're going to hang your reasoning for deleting this page on it, it's just not going to happen. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Nowhere has SMcCandlish 'hung his reasoning for deleting this page' on what you imply. His neutral, impersonal rationale is in his OP, which is nearly 900 words long and cites approximately 15 polices and guidelines. I will not be responding to any responses to this, but this bludgeoning of the discussion by a very small minority of editors is getting very repetitive, tiresome, and overwhelming. This is not the place to litigate how MPants' wiki experience could have been improved. Softlavender (talk) 05:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Self-fulfilling prophecy. Again, none of this has a thing to do with this MfD in any way, shape, or form. My rationale for deleting the page is unconnected to any of the personality-based lobbying pro or con; I keep saying it's off-topic at MfD, and a couple of youse refuse to hear it. I give up, and Softlavender's point about WP:BLUDGEON applies to everyone; I need not keep replying. I will try to address this new "a break was taken" matter, since taking a break then returning to the same dispute in the same way, and not using prescribed process do anything about the issues, and actively baiting people into dragging you to noticeboards, is a recipe for failure.

To wit:

If you're being harassed by a tagteam, then gather diffs and take it to AE, RFARB, or ANI, as seems most appropriate. If you're being socked, take it to SPI. Telling everyone on the site to basically go screw off and take you to ANI is a recipe for, well, what actually happened. (It wasn't even all bad, since a troll got blocked.) "I took a break" = good. "I exploded on contact with the same people when I came back (and went right back to my problem topic areas), instead of using obvious process to deal with them" = did not take a long enough break and consider how to effectively deal with the issue. People who choose to focus on high-conflict areas have to be more strategic than this, more self-managing, or they do not last. I already told you I didn't agree with the short block (punitive not preventative), but it's a moot point since it would have been over long ago already. M'Pants blowing up – despite his recent ANI "win", if you want to put it in such terms – in a manner absolutely guaranteed to result in an indef, simply cannot be blame-shifted into being someone else's error, and it's actually pretty damned weird. M'Pants was actually in a position to wait for another "troll assault" and go get that one blocked, too, but decided to saw his own head off instead. There's nothing we can really do about that.

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete and expicitly allow recreation per pile onism. ——SerialNumber54129 15:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• I really struggle to understand the enthusiasm of the community to decide that now is definitely the time to file and argue over multiple MfDs. Clearly it's not enough to have an ongoing (literally) 10,000 word ANI thread. We'll also throw in a thread at WT:CIVIL for good measure. The public shaming really tends to lose it's edge if you give everybody a few days to calm down. Good job folks. Smartly done. GMG^talk 16:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  What "multiple MfDs"? This MfD has no connection to any other discussion (other than pure coincidence – when an ANI closed to block someone for harassing M'Pants, I went to User_talk:MjolnirPants for one comment or another, and encountered this editnotice, then drafted the MfD. Before I posted it, M'Pants got a short-term block. That's all of it.) There is no conspiracy, and "the community" isn't a hive mind.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• Userfy to User:MjolnirPants/Complaints department - IMHO it sounds more humorous/sarcastic than serious, Anyway it's not enough for me to pile on and delete. Userfy as per Ritchie. –Davey2010^Talk 17:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Keep - Having thought on it more I don't really see a point to userfying, I also don't know why on earth I thought at the time it was humourous/sarcastic because it clearly isn't - Ofcourse there could be tons of reasons why this was created all of which would be speculation, Anyway a lot of leniency is given to talkpages so as such I cannot support userfying or deleting, –Davey2010^Talk 13:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. This is utterly ridiculous. What's the problem, really? The red background color? The large font size? I am disgusted with multiple editors over what I see here. The deletion rationale has nothing substantive to do with what is actually on the notice page. Rather, it is a WP:IDONTLIKEIT pile-on intended to add more punishment on top of what has already occurred. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  Well, for sure, sudden unexpected screen of red causes one to see red. More at Color psychology#Specific color meaning. If it was intended as pythonesque humour, it fails and should be put away. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  To me, this feels too much like a "safe space" kind of thing. And at this point, we are talking about triggering only those editors who choose to post at the talk page of someone who is indeffed and probably gone from Wikipedia for good. If there were a credible argument that the notice should be deleted for the benefit of users who want to communicate with MPants about ongoing editing issues, perhaps that would be one thing, but here, it just seems to me to be WP:Gravedancing. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Trypto, it odd to see someone asking What's the problem, really? when numerous editors have spelt out what they see as the problem. You may disagree, but please don't pretend that no case has been made.

Yes, MJP is now gone, some 12 hours after this MFD opened. But indef-blocked does not mean perma-banned, and at some point MJP may seek to return. If they do return, then this editnotice will be a proble, unless deleted.

OTH, if MJP doesn't return, then the deletion will have no negative impact.

So I see no reason to let MJP's departure halt the deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I didn't pretend that no case has been made. I said that I consider the case to be invalid. That's not the same thing. Obviously, I'm in the minority here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

For the record, M'Pants was absolutely not indeffed when this was opened, much less when drafted; it was expected that the short-term block M'Pants was under would be over by (if I'm adding right) 10:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC), a few hours after this was opened (if not sooner, given the questionable, punitive nature of the block, which was very after-the-fact and not preventative of any then-ongoing disruption). It had nothing to do with "gravedancing", and it's not possible that it could have. "Sudden loss-of-temper" indefs (what this is – in a fit of pique, he WP:OUTED someone in a way that required WP:REVDEL [2]) are often not permanent or even long-term, so this MfD isn't actually moot, regardless.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Tryptofish: I specifically avoided any commentary whatsoever on color, size, icons, and other trivia when I nominated this page for deletion (or community-demanded revision), so your suggesting that it be closed with keep on the basis that such "style" objections would be invalid, is an obvious straw man. It's even worse to accuse of a nefarious motive like being in a WP:GANG conspiracy to go after M'Pants, an editor I don't actually have a problem with. I would have MfDed this no matter who put it up, even Jimbo (especially since the very nature of the e-notice is that just trying to talk it out with the editor would not be possible; only a noticeboard action of some kind would be responded to at all). At any rate, you've addressed a grand total of zero of the actual rationales given in the nomination. :-/  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• Let's clarify a few things, perhaps in a way that will lower the temperature here. I really never said that there was anything like a gang or a conspiracy. I said that the arguments that have been made for deletion have elements of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and that editors seemed to me to be piling on, and that I find the piling-on objectionable. I listed the "style" elements in order to argue that if one looks at the edit notice in terms of what one sees there, it's not enough of a reason to delete. I recognize that there are also issues of what the edit notice says, and for what it's worth, I don't think the substance of it is really wrong although the tone and word choices are clearly more combative than they need to be, and my personal opinion is that we can give editors some leeway in their user space with respect to tone, especially when it is not targeted at specific other editors. I disagree with deleting the notice, but I also recognize that consensus is against me, and that's OK: deletion discussions have dissenting opinions but that doesn't mean there have to be bad feelings between discussants. I also understand fully that this deletion discussion began in good faith during a finite block, in which case it can be reasonable to consider the effects of the edit notice when the editor returns. But I think the discussion should take into account the changes that occur while the discussion is underway. And at this point, we have an editor who is very likely gone for good. I'd rather leave things alone for now, with the understanding that the deletion discussion should resume if/when he comes back. I'm not seeing much benefit in prophylactically deleting it now just in case he comes back. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• But keeping it serves no purpose, and doing so would present an obvious gaming problem, sending a signal to all and sundry that amounts to "I can write as terrible an editnotice as I want; if someone MfDs it, all I have to do is say I'm quitting in a huff to derail the MfD, and then just come back a little later when people aren't thinking about it any longer." I think I'll pass. The idea of this discussion being reshaped by what's happened with/to the editor in the interim is kinda turning this into a resurrection of WP:RFC/U when this is an XfD about a page not an editor.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. Whereas articletalk pages are explicitly for discussing content and improving the article, usertalk pages are the venue for discussing/resolving interpersonal or behavioral issues. ANI is, by definition, not the place to initiate such discussions -- they should already have been attempted on usertalk. Therefore this edit notice, which seemingly prohibits the resolution of interpersonal issues and instead deflects immediately to ANI, appears to be in violation of dispute resolution procedures. (And the other policies that have been noted already here.) Wikipedia is a collaborative project which requires at least the possibility of intercommunication -- forbidding that is contrary to Wikipedia's policies and pillars. If the editor wants to delete certain posts from their talkpage he is welcome to per WP:REMOVED, but he is not welcome to forbid attempts at intercommunication. See WP:OWNTALK: User talk pages must serve their primary purpose, which is to make communication and collaboration among editors easier. Editors who refuse to use their talk page for these purposes are violating the spirit of the talk page guidelines, and are not acting collaboratively. If he wants to create an edit notice that simply says "No trolling; trolling posts will be removed"; that would be acceptable, if worded civilly. Softlavender (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete as unnecessary and provocative. No need to Salt because the future of this notice can be addressed in any unblock negotiations. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete If I can quote from the editor (was it really 50 weeks ago!) the purpose of the previous offensive iteration was "For the record, the point of my notice is to be blunt and offensive: basically, I want anyone sufficiently intimidated by it to decide not to comment here to not comment here." [3]. It is no more acceptable now than it was then. It must be at least one of the conditions for returning that this is not used again. Leaky caldron (talk) 09:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Leaky caldron: Do you seriously not understand how grossly inappropriate it is for you to rip that partial quotation out of its context? I don't know you from Adam, and don't know if you have any history with MPants before his most recent block, but the actual content of the post from which you pulled that quote looks a lot more like the "classic" MPants I, and anyone whose entire history with him doesn't consist of bogus harassment, remember: civil—almost frustratingly so—but for the odd touch of biting wit. I would urge you to strike the above comment, as your behaviour at this point strikes me, and no doubt many others, as nothing short of disruptive grave-dancing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Some might say it is grossly inappropriate to claim what "no doubt what many others" might think. I know what I think - but I am not omniscient. A link was provided, in fairness; it was not, as you suggest, ripped out as if it stood alone. However, rather than deny the chance to view the entire statement, here it is:- My pleasure; and I hope I didn't sound too lecture-y at talk. For the record, the point of my notice is to be blunt and offensive: basically, I want anyone sufficiently intimidated by it to decide not to comment here to not comment here. I've found that discouraging editors from complaining about my behavior or edits here* helps to encourage them to discuss content at talk pages. While it may offend some people, I've always been of the opinion that offense is free; one can get it anytime one wants, and one can drop it with no appreciable loss of anything (I've also found this logic to hold true for apologies: easy to give out and they cost nothing, so I apologize if I've offended you with it!). So I find that the causing of a bit of offense is a rather small price to pay for a bit of encouragement to stay focused on content. I'm not trying to imply that my behavior is all that bad, but rather that I edit in a number of highly controversial areas, and that in these topic, accusations of poor behavior are made against a large proportion of well-behaved editors. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC) Leaky caldron (talk) 13:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

"Without a doubt; probably." pretty well sums up what I meant; it's not the same as "without a doubt". There's nothing remotely inappropriate about saying your behaviour at this point [... probably strikes] many others as nothing short of disruptive grave-dancing; I believe I'm acting in good faith by reading your behaviour the way I do, and Wikipedia policy actually obliges me to assume that others are similarly acting in good faith, and I don't even need to assume, because I took the "grave-dancing" language from someone else further up this discussion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Wherever you took grave-dancing from it cannot be leveled at me. I have provided a perfectly valid delete rationale. You are pushing the limits of WP:NPA in making accusations based on what you think about my personal behavior that lacks any evidence. That certainly includes accusations of grave dancing. I have now provided the full context and I see many delete reasons here based on people's individual opinion. I believe that my evidence based rationale is not an outlier. I request that you now drop the stick as there is nothing to be achieved continuing to berate me for paraphrasing relevant evidence in an open discussion which is not a vote. Leaky caldron (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The MfD is not about the editor, it's about an editnotice template and its wording. Direct statements about the prior editnotice's intent by the page creator are probably relevant, since the nature of the editnotices is basically identical, just the exact wording differs – it has lost the swear words, but we recently had a big RfC that determined they are not what defines a civility or other interaction problems anyway. If anything, the current one is actually worse. The old one intended to shunt people back to article talk to keep people WP:Focused on content; the current one shunts them to ANI to focus on WP:DRAMA. That doesn't make M'Pants a bad person (or someone being unfairly railroaded – campaigning either way is off-topic), just one not correctly gauging what's okay in an editnotice and why. Deleting the editnotice isn't assaulting the honor of the creator of it, it's just removing an unhelpful page (which by design thwarts any other way of addressing it; it's a recursive, self-generating problem). Timing-wise, if I'd waited a day to open this, M'Pants's mini-block would have theoretically been over, but in reality he was indeffed before it expired, so we'd be right back here MfDing the same page with the editor under the same indef. There's no "should have done it differently" alternative timeline that has a different procedural outcome.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. WP:OWNTALK is a behavioral guideline, not a content one. WP:POLEMIC does not apply as the editnotice is totally related to encyclopedia editing and does not discriminate against any specific editors. IAR maybe but nah. wumbolo ^^^ 22:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • To the contrary, it discriminates against an entire class of specific editors, namely any would would question M'Pants's actions for any reason, ever. "It's just a guideline" is invalid reasoning. Per WP:P&G, guidelines are expected to be followed unless there is a very good reason to not do so. WP:IAR is interpreted by the community as only valid if ignoring a rule will objectively improve the encyclopedia; it doesn't mean "I can do whateverTF I want". Refusing to communicate about any issue unless dragged to ANI for proceedings that waste dozens of editors' time is not an improvement. Your behavioral vs. content distinction is illusory, since all behavior in this medium is also content (= edits). What WP means by "content guideline" is "what can be included in articles?"; it has no connection to project-space matters like this at all, and it's simply off-topic to even mention the phrase here. (See Category:Wikipedia content guidelines – every single entry in it is about mainspace). POLEMIC does apply, since thwarting people's edits and their ability to communicate about article content, isn't "totally related to encyclopedia editing", but a direct impediment to it; it also qualifies under the "statements ... vilifying groups of editors" clause. It's "related" only in the sense that covering yourself in feces is "related" to cleanliness. (cf. WP:WIKILAWYER, on trying to twist guidelines and such to mean what they obviously don't mean).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) any would would question M'Pants's actions for any reason, ever But the simple fact is that right now the only people posting on MPants's talk page are those who want to encourage him to apologize for what happened and come back into the fold, or perhaps post condolences. Anyone who goes there to "question his actions" under the present circumstances is grave-dancing, and frankly such a group deserves to be discriminated against -- the fact of the matter is that MPants has been viciously hounded by a cadre of editors for years (I first became aware of the matter 22 months ago, but it probably predates that), and those editors, whether or not they have been !voting on this specific MFD, are laughing to themselves at what has happened. We can have an honest discussion about whether the project is better or worse off with this subpage if/when MPants returns and the arguments that have been presented for deletion are valid again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:49, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't follow your point. If you know and understand that M'Pants is blocked, you don't have a practical reason to go raise a dispute on his talk page, and you say yourself that those posting on his talk page are not. However, if someone not thusly clued in did go there to, say, question one of his reverts or whatever, thinking him still active, that would not be gravedancing; it would be an editor properly using user-talk for its purpose (and despite the editnotice trying to "ban" this). So, your gravedancing scenario is a fiction about which we need not be concerned. And if you read WP:Gravedancing, top to bottom, nothing here at the MfD qualifies, either.

Covered some of this above already ...

Anyone who gets into a heated topic and stays there to patrol neutrality will be subject to WP:TAGTEAM bullshit. So will anyone who does likewise in a dull, obscure topic that is effectively WP:OWNed by a handful of over-controlling people, usually from a moribund wikiproject. I've been subjected to this myself, and three times I had to mostly just quit editing for a month or longer to get away from them (my attempts to deal with it via noticeboards weren't successful, since I wasn't sure how to do it well, and they were good at leveraging admin buddies of theirs to go after me punitively). It didn't make me explode and "out" people or call them pedophile nazis, and accuse a bunch of admins of being a cabal protecting pedophile nazis, which is exactly what M'Pants did. There's no excuse-making or blame-shifting, of any kind available, that makes that okay. No matter how asinine some trolls are (two wrongs don't make a right). It does not matter if some trolls are laughing that M'Pants did something weird and guaranteed to get himself blocked. We are not controlled by trolls and we DGaF what their opinion is, and will eventually ban them when they slip up themselves. What M'Pants and others do, that has nothing to with his editnotice, has nothing to do with this MfD. You're just politicizing this and popularity-contesting it, as if "anything that relates in any way at all to M'Pants is part of a cause, around which all true Wikipedians must rally." I understand the emotional inspiration of it, and don't think you're being disruptive with it, but it's just basically off-base for battleground/advocacy reasons. This just isn't the venue for it. I gather that M'Pants will require an ARCA or RFARB or something to return, so that will be the venue for it, including proving collusive bad action by others. PS: By way of analogy, "People were bullying me at work" isn't an excuse for a shooting spree in the office building. Just quit and get another job, which is what M'Pants decided to do, at least for now (and that was actually before the oversight and indef).

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps I misspoke. I meant "project content guideline" not "content guideline". wumbolo ^^^ 09:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Your case seems to be that "because" WP:USERPAGE is a project content guideline that it somehow doesn't apply to, uh, content in a user page, on the basis that it's just "behavior". While I addressed that above already, I've now also updated the nomination to show several ways that the editnotice does not comply with that guideline, with more specific sectional citations. And it should still be deleted even if USERPAGE didn't exist, since it's against other policies and guidelines anyway. There's no "magical loophole" to be found.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete This is not ok. It does not appear to have been linked many times, but it does reflect a combative attitude that has caused friction. User would be best served by toning it down a bit and finding some patience if they are unblocked, and not recreating a page like this. Also the argument that the color and design are abusive outside the wording holds water with me. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: It does not appear to have been linked many times Umm ... do you know what an edit notice is? finding some patience You are aware that the user was hounded constantly for years, to the point of leaving the project in disgust, and then within two weeks of his deciding to return one of the editors hounding him decided to create a brand new account specifically to harass him anew, opening an ANI thread over nothing, and that incident spun out of control, right? MPants is patient -- the hounding went on for at least 18 months before the aforementioned decision to retire. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:49, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

No I had no idea what an edit notice was. Now I see. That is all the more unacceptable - I thought this was just a page to link people to; flashing this in the face of everyone who tries to edit their talk page is plain abuse. I also had no idea what the history is here, but thank you for explaining that makes a little more sense. Anyway, this is directed at anyone who complains, not long term harassers. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete: Now that MjolnirPants has been indefinitely blocked with his talk page access revoked in an apparent Suicide By Administrator the edit notice is useless as well as annoying. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Perhaps a new line could be added to the table of not-OK material at WP:User pages#Excessive unrelated content as suggested in this talk thread, and it could be given the short cut WP:MIDDLEFINGER. Material of this sort is "not related" because Wikipedia is a community built of trust and collaboration. Declarations of battle-minded editing on our physical servers are therefore unrelated to the project itself. @Hijiri 88: I only read partway into all the replies and the most recent of yours argued to keep because of undue harrassment. Real community empathy in these situations would create some sort of protection for the target. Maybe we should have a conversation about real prevention instead of leaving it to each person to carry a bigger stick on their own. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  The simplest fix would be to just add another item to the list of inappropriate-behavior advocacy at the WP:UPIMPROPER item: advocacy of abuse of process. However, I've also opened a thread at Wikipedia talk:User pages#Minor GAMING/WIKILAWYER fix about correcting the wording in the table you mention, to prevent any more twisting of the intent through equivocation about the meaning of "related to".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• Keep Everybody should use one. It means "Use your brain before you post here". People rarely do. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  Maybe everyone should have an editnotice, but it obviously should not say what this one does. It very clearly does not mean "use your brain before you post here"; it assumes anyone who doesn't agree with the editor is up to no good, and says that he won't engage in any consideration of other editors' concerns unless dragged to a noticeboard. Not how WP operates.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• Some admins almost encourage long term harassment with statements along the lines of "There must be some reason for harassing the victim." But being nasty is not the solution and this is just nastiness. Legacypac (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, though I'll reiterate that this MfD really isn't about ranty attitude (which would be getting into old WP:RFC/U territory) or red "talk to the hand" visual appearance; it's not "tone policing". It's about anti-consensus, disruptive effects, especially failure of AGF in regard to basically anyone who would criticize or question the editor about anything; and thwarting any/all editors raising any issues of any kind with the author, except by filing frivolous ANI reports and wasting community time. It's a difference between being testy and bombastic in ways that some people don't like, versus lighting community good will on fire just to watch it burn. That it was apparently motivated by an intent to give the finger to a specific handful of harassing editors is irrelevant.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• Further (and hopefully last) comment The best argument, and IMO the only one that matters, for deleting this edit notice would be to take ammunition away from the editors harassing MPants. As long as MPants is blocked with talk page access revoked, this argument is essentially moot. Deleting it will not improve the project in any way, but would rather just encourage said harassers, given that it would almost certainly serve to "validate" the harassing comments they have made (including at least once in this MFD) and thus encourage more harassment of those of us who are still here. I don't by SMcC's somewhat outlandish hypothetical above that someone might go to MPants's talk page with regard to an edit he made months or years ago, but I stand by my initial comment that, if MPants ever returns, we should have a discussion about whether this edit notice just makes his problem worse. If he ever returns. Now the notice should be kept because no good can possibly come from deleting it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  • In much the same spirit of "hopefully last", I agree with you and, even though I really have considered and thought about the other rationales and the replies to me, my opinion has not changed. And please, there is no need to badger me about that, OK? I recognize what the consensus is, and that's OK. But I do want to add that, even with deletion, I think it would be a very bad idea to WP:SALT the edit notice page. If one reads WP:BLOCK, the policy is that, once a block is over, and assuming that the blocked user has been allowed to resume editing, the intent is that they can put it behind them, so long as they reform their conduct and do not repeat or extend the disruptive behavior. (Of course, the recreation of an essentially similar edit notice would be another matter, even as he did that once before but was not blocked in that context.) So, if MPants wants to come back, and if ArbCom accepts his appeal, there should not be a presumption that he is incapable of creating an acceptable new notice. If he goes back to the old conduct, then SALT it. But not now. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Hijiri88: I also agree that's a good reason, it simply doesn't invalidate all other reasons. The good that can come from deleting the bad editnotice now is removal of the WP:BEANS problem that failing to do so sends a signal that this kind of editnotice is fine and dandy, and something to aspire to if you find yourself in a dispute. Plus also the WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY matter; we should not have to re-MfD this later upon M'Pants's return (which would probably inspire him to wonder why he returned). Better to just get all drama over with now and let it be old news when he thinks of coming back in a month or three or whatever.
    Tryptofish: I had not intended to badger you, if you felt I was. I agree with you that it should not be SALTed. We needn't dwell on it, since the closer would not SALT it, given no actual policy basis to do so, and enough have already disagreed with the idea explicitly that a consensus for it could not be found. In closing: the "if/when M'Pants returns" motif is basically the same rationale both for non-SALT and for do-delete.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
• Keep per wumbolo. It's silly, but you don't have to care i.e. take offense if you don't want it. --tickle me 03:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  • By the time people see it, it is probably too late. A bit like Shock and awe - it just assails the reader's senses. Leaky caldron (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

    More to the point, it misleads editors, especially newer ones, that they have no recourse whatsoever other than filing a frivolous ANI which is more likely to get them in trouble than anything else. It would still have that effect if it were blue and didn't have a giant "STOP" hand.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

    It might be more to your point or some other point; it isn't more to my point. The comment I responded to talked about not taking offence if you don't want to. Quite clearly a sweetly worded banner in blue with pink flowers would not cause offence. Leaky caldron (talk) 10:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

    It likely would if the wording were the same, since its message is still hostile, and the cutesy décor would come off as intensely sarcastic. >;-) PS: I (obviously, I would have thought) meant "more to the point of why MfD deletes things", not "more to the point of what's in your head", since I'm not a mindreader.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• Keep or Userfy, I don't care which. Cardamon (talk) 04:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Are you commenting in the right discussion? You can't userfy something already in userspace.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete for many of the reasons listed above, but from my perspective this goes against the collaborative nature of the project. Mr Ernie (talk) 10:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.