Long-term 'experienced' editors honestly don't give a f*ck about Jimmy Wales' opinions re WP: "Just a random opinion from me: I wonder if it's rude to template, period. I have done it some, myself. But it is not clear to me that it's a very human and welcoming thing to do. Indeed, I might go so far as to say that templating regulars is less rude than templating newbies. I mean, we all know what is going on, we often communicate through shorthand acronyms. Templates designed for old timers could be concise. But for newbies, it's probably better to say hello and explain something in a human way!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)"

----------------------------------

"Wikipedia appears to have a strange undefined organisational structure, or lack thereof. It seems to be run by some Mad Max-like community stuck in the middle of the desert. Contributors have to submit to many editors that follow meticulously baroque editorial guidelines, which are imposed in an inconsistent fashion." http://www.zdnet.com/article/wikipedia-losing-contributors-fatal-flaw-the-community-editors/

----------------------------------

Assume_no_clue with hypocritical editors!

----------------------------------

Best WP quote: "Remember, the most important thing to a bureaucrat is bureacracy and the rules. Sanity is no defence [[User:William M"

----------------------------------
----------------------------------
  • Harassing editors please also read: Wikilawyering and GET OVER IT as you're not doing Wikipedia any good! What's bad for WP is:
-"Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions.
-"Asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express.
-"Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles.
-"...wikilawyering is used, particularly by Wikipedians more influential than them, to avoid giving careful attention to their claims.
WP:Wikilawyering
----------------------------------
  • "Disturbed" long-serving editor/admins can strategically use baiting to get newbies removed.
"a common baiting strategy involves badgering the opposition—while carefully remaining superficially civil—until someone lashes out. They then complain to an administrator. Time-pressed administrators may look only at specific edits without delving into the background that led up to the incident, resulting in a warning or block for the targeted editor. Most discouraging of all, this tactic is nearly risk-free. There rarely are negative consequences for those who use it..."
----------------------------------

Your account will be renamed

edit

22:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Block message

edit

Sockpuppet investigation

edit
 

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zxcv9, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Stuartyeates (talk) 23:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)Reply