The court jester, trying to be serious..... Wikipedia is a workplace. The conduct of the hypothetical editors described in question 5 is bullying, in my view. The candidate does not seem to have considered this. Hence my question. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:25, 27 December 2018 (UTC) No, Wikipedia ...

Do stewards have a policy of non-involvement, do they not see the abuses, or do they turn a blind eye? Do people have evidence of how stewards act, one way or another? I have not seen any , but would welcome information regarding the degree to which these people are trying to tackle the serious prob...

I am the law shouted Roland Freisler of the People's Court. Yes, Godwin is in the house. A revival of people with extreem dangers thoughts in a modern digital form. No trias politica, no hearing and rebuttal and no possibility of appeal. All elements are there. Wikipedians love kangaroo courts. The...

1) Create or edit a page with hideous NPOV problems 2) Camp this page 3) Wait until someone relatively new to the site engages you on the talk page, or, actually has the gual to make an edit. 4) First, if they've made an edit, revert it all. Next, if the user made an edit, call them an abject moron...

One thing you certainly can't do, I have discovered, is edit an article marked satire to be critical of admins.

The totalitarian tendancies are everywhere evident. From their banning of users for satire of admins on designated satire pages, to their tiny cabal of Nazis.

Apologies as I'm sure this stuff has been said before, but it's my first post here and wanted to get it off my chest. From various interactions on Wikipedia it seems most long time users now follow the following pattern: 1) Create or edit a page with hideous NPOV problems 2) Camp this page 3) Wait u...