https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =442240875
MickMacNee wrote: To all inexperienced editors who may stumble onto this page, this is a warning. Do not waste your time on this site. If you persist here, it will steal your time, it will steal your energy, it will steal your very soul. This site is run on nothing but false pretences. The rules and guidelines here, while eminently sensible as written, are ultimately worthless. The admins charged with the task of ensuring they are followed, in the majority, simply will not do anything about disputes unless its a very easy task they can resolve in 5 minutes, and in the minority, will do much much worse, either through their arrogance, their ignorance, or any of the other human flaws that with some of these people while eminently obvious, are not discovered in the selection process. And it's a job for life, so there's no point pointing them out after they're made admin. The majority of editors here who you will get into disputes with if you are remotely normal, are on the whole, total self-interested hypocrites, and that's just the people who generally edit here as a hobby, never mind all those who have more dubious motives for being here. If you get into a dispute with someone here that is not resolve-able in 5 minutes, and the outcome is still not satisfactory according to your right thinking mind, then forget it, you've already lost. If you can handle that, fine, carry on here. If you can't, then leave now. On no account should you labour under the false impression that on Wikipedia there is any time or patience to sort out long running or difficult disputes, except in the crudest possible ways. There are people here who have been doing the same thing, the exact same thing, for years now. A classic example. What would you say if I told you a single editor is allowed to systematically search for and edit the use of a particular term either through replacement or indeed complete removal, to ensure all Wikipedia pages, every single one that used it, matches his world view, which is very much a minority outside his tiny country of origin. Does that surprise you as something that would be tolerated on a site that has thousands of editors who are all apparently collaborating to build an international encyclopedia? No? Well, get used to it. What he does isn't technically block-able on a 5 minute reading, and all other options fully resemble talking to a brick wall, while the aforementioned admins do their stuff, or rather, just don't. That's why he's still here, still doing it, after all these years. He gets away with it not because he's smart, but just because he's simply learnt through trial and error that if he doesn't slip up and do something that on a 5 minute exam is seen as block-able, he's never going to be bothered, except of course by the thousands of people, including all the hundreds who chose to use the term in their own contribution to the mass theft that is this site, who quite rightly object to what he does because it's a disgusting abuse on several levels, but who are not suitably versed in the general complexities of wikilaw, and will invariably either fall foul of the 5 minute rule, or just walk away. Because one thing's for certain, he's not going anywhere, and he will wait years if necessary before re-attempting a change he previously couldn't quite pull off the 1st, 2nd, even 3rd time previously. It's a Golden Ticket, a free pass to personally influence the world's 8th biggest website on a massive scale. Who's going to pass up that opportunity? I guarantee that the Dalai Lama himself would not succeed in making any progress in that dispute. And there are other examples. So many in fact, that for this site to ever be advertised as a successful project, is a bit of a joke. The truly sad thing is, you have to waste 4 years of your life to be able to see it. Don't presume that the values and beliefs you hold, such as logic, fairness, neutrality or even basic respect, are shared by anyone who is already well established here, not least the people elected to the highest venue of dispute resolution. I've just been through their process, and their 17 man body has expended barely 100 words on it in public. Many of their errors are just obvious from the position of someone who, as the person being examined, knows the story behind each and every cited dispute, each and every critic's own tale of woe. Many other errors are suspected, and despite me seeking clarification, remain unanswered. I've seen people put more words into a discussion about what background colour to give a certain table than they have put into this process. If the intention was a deliberate insult, a calculated slap in the face of someone who has given so much to this project, then it worked. I sincerely hope they did more in private, but wikileaks aside, when there's no summary of that put out there, then it's worthless. Certainly to me, and definitely to you. All this on the back of the most recent outrage, finding out that its considered perfectly fine to compare hard working editors who've never damaged an article in their lives, to members of the Westboro Baptist Church. If you're disgusted at that thought, good, it means you're still a decent human being, and have not yet been corrupted by this site's perverse sense of morality. I've learnt all this through nearly 4 years here, I'm giving you the benefit of my experience free of charge in the spirit of humanity. 4 years is a long time to waste, there's a hell of a lot of things you can do with that time to actually improve the world, or even just your own life, rather than waste it here on the general two-faced self-serving fakery that passes for civil discussion on this site. If you carry on and don't heed it, and don't have the sort of temperament which barely 5% of the world's population would possess, then don't say I didn't warn you. I say all of this as someone who passionately believes in the site, its rules and guidelines, as written.
MickMacNee wrote: Interesting to note RD232 where you think 'crossing the line' with PA's is though, because I have for the last day or so not been remotely caring about such things, that is a task for the people who are still here labouring under the false pretences that such policies are applied in an even manner. A reversion of one comment here was all I could manage to solicit in that regard while I wait for Glacier Inc. to do their stuff, and that doesn't count obviously, because it was done by Scott, and as we have learned from Sandstein in his infinite wisdom cos he knows these things, he's a good buddy of mine, so there's obviously something else behind that action right eh. Now RD232, why don't you make yourself useful for a change and do some actual admin work that isn't driven by your own personal malice. Why not go and supervise the Afd for the Caribbean Airlines Flight 523 article, making sure that certain people, even admins, don't violate WP:CIV by say, oh I don't know, lying their asses off, ignoring valid points, making WP:ATAs and generally responding to valid rebuttals with some girlish whining about how it's so incivil to be subjected to criticism, when 'all I'm doing is expressing my opinion which is as valid as anyone else's even though I got it off the back of a cereal box and/or copied it off that guy who just said it too'! wha wha wha. If, as arbcom want us all to believe inspite of the evidence, that you're still fit to be an admin, both competence wise and in the whole emotional stability stakes (maybe they only see you doing light duties for now, like, say, a Giano block now and again just to keep up that little fantasy for everyone), that means you're experienced enough that you know what to watch out for, theoretically. I know some of you do as I've lost count of the admins who actually admit it does go on, I'm just waiting for some cunt to do something about it, instead of focussing on the people who fucking tell you that it's happening and want you to just do your fucking jobs for a change, at least the bits of it that take more than 5 minutes. Arbcom are wanting to encourage a new standard of professional conduct here remember, and I'm eager to see where the behaviours at Afd etc of the likes of that stupid fuck Dave1185 stand in this new era. Which reminds me, someone please go and Afd the Caribbean Airlines Flight 523 article. Bearing in mind that its pretty wishful thinking that anyone will even read the nomination before chucking a 'keep, notable' vote in, just put 'fails WP:EVENT' for now, and clarify as necessary should a miracle happen and an Afd proceeds according to the written instructions and other relevant guidance, not just the incompetent half assed way you've always let it happen forever, which must really really piss off all the people who actually took the time to write those things. Which also reminds me, can an admin who does actually know where the PA line is, please go and block Dave1185, as he seems to have grown a pair of testicles now he knows I can't take him to task anymore. And you could also ask BilCat if, health permitting, he's ever found that diff that shows I've ever said WP:CIV doesn't apply to me, as I'm pretty sure that's still the piece of billy bullshit it's always been. That is assuming these are the sort of editors who fall into the new age of professional standard expectations we are looking for around here right. I mean, it's not just me who was expected to live by these standards was it? Shirley not. I can say of course that now it doesn't apply to me obviously, but that's because I'm not an idiot, even though some people think I would be the kind of silly bastard who would still be following it even after it's been declared by the good people at SekretsRUs that I never have, because, y'know, on accounts of my duh lack of profeshunalibility over all these years.