Please unstar your most recent sarcastic comment, @quid. I'm amazed at how openly you allow users to be hostile towards me.

@amWhy what has this to do with "allow"

You are free to leave tonight to work or sleep, @quid.

@amWhy this here is work.

And if I don't do it you complain.

@quid Yeah, you make it very clear to us in n to infinity iterations about how overworked you are and too busy, and have little time to be here. You made you, so sleep in it.

@amWhy that's arguably true. So I cut down on non-constructive conversations.

Either way I removed that comment.

On the substance, a concern was brought up. I personally do not quite agree. Thus, I solicited other opinions. This is somehow construed as me dismissing the concern raised.

@quid And by "non-constructive conversations," you mean those conversation in which users disagree with you, or otherwise don't end in "Thank you soooooo much @quid. If not for you, oh... I don't know what I would have done! You are my savior."

@amWhy no. Those where users explain how they are much more competent and moderators ought to be in awe or maybe even fear them ;-)

@quid I brought in an opinion. But you wanted only the opinions from the Ol' Boy Mods... so bullshit.

@amWhy I had noted your opinion.

@quid Don't put words in my mouth. You continually escalate conflict with such sarcasm.

@amWhy alright "more experienced" then

@quid For the most part, I've always been supportive of mods; but when they disrespect how much of the work many non-glorified users do, which would otherwise fall in the laps of mods, then I push back, and when I do, you tend to get defensive and demean me and others... And attribute all blame to amWhy the scapegoat. Read The Theory of Moderation, and review transcripts from our conversations back in 2016 and 2017.

@amWhy there are two "they" it is a bit confusing.

@quid Yes, upon rereading my post I caught that, and hope it is less confusing.

@amWhy I don't don't know how it is a sign of discrespect that I asked for the opinion of two other moderators to evaluate your concern.

I mean if I meant to dismiss it, I'd dismiss it and move on. Not ping other mods.

@quid There are many dozens of users who deserve utmost respect, if user21820 nor I don't meet your bar for trustworthiness. Your deference only, strictly only, a few other mods reflects a problematic perception that you consider only you and other mods as deserving of respect first and foremost, which is very visible and doesn't escape the notice of very committed users. In other words the very structure of the mod team and all mods loyalty to it, before all else,

@amWhy so I always need to do what you want?

...sets the context which you complain about, after having a part in creating it.

@amWhy again I trusted you opinion (which is counter to my own) enough to ask for others to weigh in, rather than to just stick to my own.

@quid No! I never said that. I said there are dozens upon dozens of users you need to listen to and take seriously, and not dismiss only because you disagree.

@amWhy well I did take you seriously. So I informed others about the perceived problem.

If I would not take you seriously, I'd just move on.

I also said you can remove me from the class of respected users, as you already have done, and regularly do. And as other mods how done... And like you trained CMs to do, as a team.

@quid I'll soon be gone, not immediately, but soon enough, so this right now is not about me, it's about users who put double, triple, quadruple the time any of the mods puts into this site; and mods need to think of the community as their team, and stop commiserating with one another, pitting you all, who you perceive as the chosen ones, against "them" the "others" i.e, all non-diamond users in this community. This community, everyone, needs to work and cooperate as a team.

"Team" should be reserved for 8 or 9 users.

@amWhy again, I am sorry if it seemed that I dismissed your concern. The opposite is the case. Alright, I did not change my own opinion on the spot, but maybe there is a spectrum between not respecting the opinion and falling in line with it instantly.

@quid I understand. We need to respect that in one another, that we may not readily see eye to eye, and that's okay. I think the most important thing to focus on is working to understand understand one another, and this goes beyond just you and me. Site wide. And it goes beyond SE. Yes, I admit I am sometimes triggered and respond defensively, but I think you do too sometimes. All I want to say right now, @quid, is I really do have the utmost respect for you, and trust in you.

I feel safe challenging some SE and math.se patterns when speaking with you, because of my respect for you and trust in you. Believe it or not, but among colleagues and supervisors, in the past, I have felt too intimidated to speak up about anything. So if nothing else, I want to thank you precisely for the fact that I can operate on this site without much of a sense of intimidation.

^^^Feel free to move the above to your private room, @quid.

@amWhy thank you for the thoughtful comment. As far as I am concerned it can stay around.

@quid :-)

@quid wrap up what you need to finish tonight, and then get some good sleep. I won't pester you anymore (for now!) ;P

@amWhy let's see how this will work out.

I mean me wrapping up.

@quid I offered just a nudge in that direction. You're a big boy, so I trust you'll do what works for you.

@amWhy sure. It's actually useful.

@quid: the user in @user21820 message is already suspended. Perhaps the profile introduction is written as a retaliation for that suspension (I may be wrong, this is just a guess). Why is changing profile allowed during suspension?

@ParamanandSingh That's an interesting (side) question actually, that I haven't given much thought to. Personally, I don't care as long as they do not put lies (e.g. "Have been abused by bullying moderators.") in the profile, and do not circumvent the suspension (e.g. via sockpuppets or anonymous vandalism). Unfortunately, there have been users who did these, even both of them.

@ParamanandSingh no it was there before. In any case the exact text is around since many months, and the general text since years (without the particular phrase though).

@quid That is interesting information, thanks. Now the question I am having, as I am sure you understand, is why such profile-based veiled 'threats' should be allowed to stay?

At what point would it be expedient to step in? Right now it is "you should fear me". It can be escalated to "you should fear retribution" then "you should fear my revenge" then "you should fear for your life" then "you should fear me because I know your family members and where you live" then "you should fear me coming to kill you". At what point should it be stopped, and why not earlier?

I think moderators need to actually sit down and work this out, for the better for this site. So thanks for not immediately dismissing this, as per what you told amWhy.

By the way, I don't think it's a ridiculous idea that such users might escalate their antics (whether with real intent behind it or not), because it has been shown time and again that they really do. Even in this case, you stated that the problematic phrase had been added later, which is indeed an instance of such escalation. What will be added next?

Hello. Hello! Hello!!! HELLO!!! LISTEN UP I AM TALKING TO YOU!!! ANSWER NOW OR I WILL HIT YOU!!! ANSWER NOW OR I WILL KILL YOU!!! Where do we stop and why not earlier?

@quid I assume you're asking for my personal judgement. "LISTEN UP I AM TALKING TO YOU!!!" is the limit. Reason is simple; anything beyond that suggests intent of harm.

That is why I said that (I think) the moderators need to sit down and work it out, because I have already worked it out for myself but I am not "the moderators".

=)

Feel free to ask me more to determine more precisely my judgements in different scenarios. The more discussion, the merrier. =)

Alright. I think my view is that given the surrounding text the "fear me" does not come over as an actual threat. It seems much more like a fear of God than a fear of being robbed at gunpoint in the street.

Generally we leave user profiles alone as much as possible.

@quid I understand that viewpoint. I just want to point out that if the "God" in question is a kind one who never harms anything, there wouldn't be the need for the word "fear". The very reason why people say "fear God" is because of the retribution/smiting that their God is believed to carry out.

Of course, it's not clear-cut here. It's just that I feel a bit more care about user-profiles should be taken on SE.

Indeed, you and other moderators have told me before that you prefer to leave profiles alone if possible. And I think you know I am not quite happy with that for provable lies, which in my opinion is less severe than threats.

Whether this one ("you should fear me") should be taken as a threat or not? Before the MH incident, I wouldn't have thought twice about it. But after that? I changed my mind on a few things...

In other words, I wouldn't have brought this issue up if the MH incident had never happened.

I will not defend the profile.

Anyway I'll wait for others to weigh in.

I'll leave now.

See you

@quid Thank you! Take care and see you! =)

@quid, @user21820 I'm inclined to agree with @user21820 here. Profile statements on a publicly available website, particularly when directed at other users and moderators on the site, is a behavior, a speech act, just like a meta post, or a comment posted on this site. I think the bar should be lower than actual threats, in keeping with the CoC: any user writing words with the intent of intimidating or in an attempt to punish users/mods, violates the code of conduct.

A profile or meta post declaring a user's belief in extra-terrestrial life does not violate as such. But meta posts, or profiles that name specific users, or allude to, in a derogatory manner "certain users" and/or mods violate the code of conduct. Please stop allowing users who have been suspended to point fingers at anyone via their profile. We've seen it with MH, with BD, with DA, and many others.

@amWhy the profile in question is not directed at anyone in particular though it seems. Not even implicitly in a way of those being meant knowing it. It seems just like generic bluster, and engaging with it amounts to "feeding the troll." Further, as mentioned above the profile has nothing to do with the suspension itself.

But possibly this was meant as a more general observation.

@quid I agree, @quid, in that particular case. But there have been examples of profiles and meta posts that have violated the code of conduct.

@amWhy I prefer to stick to the particular case for now.

@quid Okay. While trolling in a comment, a question, in chat, or on math.meta is rarely tolerated, why can users flag profiles which sometimes consist of trolling speech ask. All I am seeking is for you and mods to stop treating profile speech acts as sacred.

So, @quid, it would be perfectly okay and inactionable if I were to post an editorial on Trump, the lies, dishonesty, self-contradiction, the vitriol against those who don't worship him, and tie it in to "those users who behave like him"?

@quid you and the mod team literally invite users to attack one another and this site, because you've allowed so many such profiles, users sick of them may figure, "if you can't beat them (meaning, if moderators look the other way), why not join them and do the same, back at them. You and the mod team actually contribute the the conflict on this site.

@amWhy I cannot parse the first sentence. (Or technically it's the second.)

Either way I think the particular case is blown out of proportion. In any case one can hardly argue that it is urgent, it being around since more than half a year. The profile similar in content is around since several years. It seems it did not create all that much problems.

In any case we are aware of this users and their antics since a very long time. Just that some now stumbled over it does not mean that we need to jump to action and possibly "wake sleeping dogs" in the process.

@quid Yup, I just happened to notice it only now. I'm not asking for immediate action either. Just wanted to prompt a discussion regarding the apparent dissonance between the be-nice policy and the profile laxity. It would be nice to hear from other moderators as well, since we've heard plenty from you already. =)

So, @quid, it is permissible for me, in my profile, to write "For those intent on downvoting my posts, beware, because downvoters do not understand that what I say is true, and my answers are true. Any true mathematician would understand my answer and readily accept it as true. Those who don't and who downvote only do so because they feel threatened by my intellectual powers." From what your said thus far, you've already approved such a profile if I write it.

@quid Please consider the consequences of what you so carelessly say, because such careless statements open the door to further abuses on this site.

And mind you, @quid, if you or anyone else complains about my profile, or for that matter, anyone flagging my profile, comments, or answers, and any actions ever taken against me by site mods would absolutely violate my freedom of speech, and my freedom of expression. Afterall, in my above proposed profile, I don't single out anyone.

Be careful, @quid, how you choose to answer valid concerns, because you open the doors to virtually anything that you have no right to act against, given your own nonchalant and dismissive responses to those who care.

@amWhy If you write it, I won't intervene. (I do not approve such a profile though; but user profiles do not need my approval.)

@amWhy comments and answers are handled differently than user profiles. Freedom of speech is not a relevant notion in this context.

@amWhy everything that was said is just a repetition of existing practice, to reiterate the profile exists in this form since a long time. Certain affirmations strike me as somewhat alarmist.

(I'll check later for responses. See you.)

@quid Why isn't a user profile subject to the Code of Conduct? It makes any enforcement of the Code of Conduct anywhere else on this site no longer valid, Violation of the code of conduct is violation of the code of conduct. If you want to advocate for exception in your opportunistic enforcement, I declare such enforcement invalid.

@quid existing practice means nothing if you fail to justify it.

@quid It seems you place little value in consistency, which has long been a problem on math.se. If you (and the mod team as a whole) cannot apply consistent criteria, across all users, and all modes of users' behavior, including ranting or provocative profiles, than don't expect much respect, from either side of the aisle.

@quid @amWhy I agree that the profile is on the razors edge between what might be acceptable, and what is not. Out of an abundance of caution, I have deleted the text.

Thanks, @Xander. Please forgive me any recent comments that may have upset you. Bottom line, I believe you are one of the most valuable mods on this site, and sometimes I just miss the best of the mod team, though I am aware that at times, availability of mods, like availability of users, is to be expected. I apologize for upsetting you.

@XanderHenderson Please feel free to hang out in the Cafe and Tavern, even if you need to leave. You can remain there anyway. It's not the same, in that room, without your stop-ins there.