Get lost.
Go away and learn WP:PAG
Fuck off
Doubleplus fuck off
Really fuck off
fuck off. you are banned [from my talk page]. can't you read?
Wow.
What was this all about then?
THIS....
No, the rabid dog wasn't adding the [citation needed], he was removing it. Oh, and of course he had good reason......
If my colleague is correct about a citation being needed, which they are not, then I could spend the rest of my life adding citation needed tags on Alumni lists, and still not finish the job It was just such a stupid thing for them to insist on, so ... -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Fucking plank. Policy is not on his side. Common sense is not on his side. Common deceny is nowhere to be seen.
And yet still no warning, much less a block. This is the sum total of Administrator intervention.......
User:Roxy the dog reported by User:Elizium23 (Result: Woof)
Declined I think this is stale; Roxy has stopped editing the article now and moved onto other things, so I don't think any administrator action is required. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:41, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't know about you Roxy, but I find if somebody doesn't respond to being told to fuck off twice, the best course of action is probably not to tell them to fuck off a third time
What I find is that lists like "alumni", "notable people" and especially "in popular culture" etc. have an irritating tendency for people to just wander up to them and put in any old thing, irrespective of whether it actually benefits the reader or not. A citation next to an entry at least signals "we've checked this out" as a kind of sibboleth, if you see what I mean.
As was pointed out, but not acted upon, he has indeed moved on, just to another edit war. Super ironically, at the article on
Power posingThis particular toxic user has been blocked five times, an average of once a year. The Administrators who unblock him include former Arbitrator Drmies, and Board member Doc James. So it can hardly be claimed letting this dog piss and shit all over the place, is an aberration of their preferred means of self-governance in action.
For Wikipedia, this is sadly normal. The person in receipt of all this abuse, despite having done nothing wrong, is more likely to be sanctioned than the dog. The theory there goes that people are meant to disengage with psychos like this and seek help, even though a psycho like this shouldn't be on Wikipedia in the first place. It's good advice, but there will always be scenarios where that advice is not followed, especially in cases like this, where the first initial going faith contact, albeit a template warning, is greeted with "get lost".
On Wikipedia, while you can certainly aim for best practice, when it comes to ordinary editors, you absolutely need to ensure minimal standards. Best practice is approaching users with personalized messages and disengagement when greeted with abuse, but minimal practice is
not abusing people.
I hope
the message contained in FRAMBAN means this dog gets a much needed bullet to the head soon. Speaking strictly veteranarianologically, you understand.
