19 day old user complains about an editor with an 18 year old account casting aspersions, being uncivil and making threats about bans
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped ... 0324012500
Take a guess how that went:
Davejfudge, what sort of resolution are you looking for beyond an apology which it sounds like you have already gotten? There is "ideal" behavior and then there is actual, ordinary behavior by our editors which can fall short of the ideal. This exchange sounds pretty ordinary to me so if you are offended by it, then you might not be comfortable on Wikipedia. Most of the time, editors are very civil here but this IS the internet and people can sometimes be blunt, glib or even mocking. You have only been active here for a couple of weeks and if you want to still be an editor in a few months or years, it helps to have a thick skin. Long time editors have faced much worse treatment from other editors or vandals or trolls than this and you need to know when it is serious and blockworthy and when it is just ordinary, every day rudeness and not worth a trip to ANI (like this incident).
If you want to run this experience by other editors and get their feedback, I'd recommend running it by the editors at the Teahouse who can offer a reality check. Liz Read! Talk! 04:30, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
"Everyday rudeness". Further proof that CIVIL does not apply to Admins, their friends or to long-time editors whom the Admins like.
"fall short of the ideal", yet any time a new-ish editor is taken to ANI, their history is torn apart for even a hint of incivility for which they can be blocked as a disruptive editor.
"have thick skin", ah yes, just like the Admins and the long-time editors who ask for a site ban according to CIR at the first sign of a broken policy.
The hypocrisy on full display.
The editor, user:Davejfudge, unsurprisingly left a note on their userpage that they are taking a break from Wikipedia. Nobody with a modicum of social awareness is going to let those Wikipedia losers abuse them. Because that's what "thick skin" means in this case, to take the abuse from editors in hopes of being able to dish out abuse later. Like some hazing ritual.
WP:CIVIL "Editors are expected to not personally attack or harass other editors. This applies equally to all"
Update: look at the exchange
I'm certainly not comfortable on Wikipedia knowing that certain editors get different treatment for behavior that gets most people banned. Telling the "offended" to just stop talking is maybe not the best way to try to keep editors on your website. Davejfudge (talk) 15:34, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
What an astute observation. Liz's response:
You're reading an awful lot into my comments that I didn't say. I wasn't saying "stop talking", it was more like "get used to it!" Editors on Wikipedia, like people elsewhere, aren't perfect. Sometimes people are short-tempered or have had a bad day, and that includes you and me. I never said "certain editors get different treatment" and am not sure what you are referring to here. Liz Read! Talk! 04:00, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
The part at the end about not being sure what the editor means by different treatment is particularly dishonest.
Users who have been around awhile learn how to spot tells for editors who are returning after being blocked[link to WP:SOCKPUPPETRY]. Whether it's true or not for you, the fact is you do tick quite a few of the boxes on the list of signs. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:48, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
A new user that sees right through Wikipedians' bullshit? Accuse them of being a sockpuppet!
What a vile place full of vile people.
