That rant was directed at BrownHairdGirl, who must be ever so pleased to be told she needs to ask the powerful and influential man (Drmies) for his permission before she can apply a Wikipedia guideline to what he has hanging in his locker.I'm so sorry you're too fucking dense to understand this, but none of YOUR pompous time waisting here is improving the encyclopedia. Its fucking busywork you've appointed yourself to. Drop it, drop it right fucking now or I'll drag you to a noticeboard and ask you be topic banned from catagories. You're obsessed. That's clear. You've lost view of the forest (providing a ready source of accurate information to the world) for the trees (some list that serves some purpose probably, maybe, but certainly in no way in this particular instance served any purpose related to dispensing knowledge). Try to wrap your head around this: A red link catagory on a user page is just a bunch of words . It does not in any way affect the end product, the encyclopedia. The only PAG you've got backing you is a guideline. There is no consensus backing your removal and it appears that both the owner of the affected page and the consensus of editors speaking on it at his talk oppose your removal. Yet you are edit warring over it. All so you can clear some obscure list. And your certainly barking up the wrong tree waving your flag of experience in my face. My experience is there are many many editors here who started in the previous decade (including several administrators and highly prolific editors) that haven't a clue at all as to what Wikipedia is or what it needs going into its third decade. Bottom line: your actions here had no affect on the product we produce, an encyclopedia. But yet, you edit warred over it. Pick your battles. I was a hotel manager for many years. There was an instance where a housekeeper (in a department that at that time was 100% female) had a beefcake calendar on the inside of her locker door, which was a violation of policy (this was long enough ago that working environments were a bit, uh, different than now). Without any complaint the executive housekeeper opened her locker and removed it, came to me and asked that she be written up for it. I asked her who had complained and she stated no one. I asked her if she found it offensive, to which she said no. I pulled the maid into my office, handed her the calendar and asked her nicely to take it home. She agreed. Problem solved. Why am I telling you this? Her calendar didn't affect our product at all. Its presence violated a workplace policy, but there was 0 indications that it affected any employee in a negative way, and that department was stellar. I doubt (without a complaint) I'd have even done anything if she put it back. So, here you have some letters on a highly productive (and influential) editor's user page. Just sitting there not bothering a soul. Now today, it shows up on some list. You feel the need to clear that list, which I can see the benefit for in mainspace. So you edit war over it to achieve the goal of CLEARING A LIST. Guess what? We're not here to make and clear internal lists. We're here to make an encyclopedia. I cannot see any justification in edit warring over that, especially since I'm sure if you'd have just asked, he most likely would have removed it voluntarily. If you continually have problems with a small segment of editors over clearing your list, you need to recognize that problem is likely yours, not the other editors. There are no mission or policy based arguments to be made for the need to clear a list. It's your self appointed goal. It isn't your "job"; you're not going to get demoted for not doing it. Edit warring to clear a list is the disruptive behavior here, not people calling you on it. You have contributed a lot to the project, that is certain. And prior to this precise conversation, I've never lumped you in with that group of long term editors I mentioned above. If you wanted to be envelope pushing passionate about verifiability or POV to the point of edit warring I'd get that (and have your back). But if you want to battle about clearing a maintenance list, especially when the particular edit in question isn't even front-facing, you've got nothing coming here. I personally wouldn't want to be remembered as the editor who passionately defended clearing maintenance lists. Just a thought. This is over. Not because your list is cleared, certainly not because you are righteous here, but because Doc threw in the towel. See ya later. John from Idegon (talk) 07:13, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Oh, and as usual, when a woman is edit warring over some lame shit on Wikipedia, she's being "passionate" and "obsessed" over her "busywork", and the man really has no choice but to break the same cast iron policy, as well as another one, the one that says don't personally attack your fellow editors, just so he can stop her enforcing her silly guideline.
He did it for the good of the readers. I hope you are grateful.
Naturally, not that it would excuse him even if he wasn't, but this male brained ape is clearly wrong on the substantive content issue too. As she had already pointed out to him, a list that is meant to be emptied of 100-150 items a day, which even he accepts is a a crucial maintenance task, has no business being permanently cluttered with a randomly changing number of entries that are there for no good reason at all (it would currently be around 50 if this guideline did not exist).
Making sure the menfolk can have a good laugh at work, and generally ensuring they have nice lockers, is by his own definition, not important. Certainly not important enough to edit war over the basic principle that it is supposedly vital to Wikipedia. If Drmies is such a big baby that he withdraws his labour if he is not first asked nicely if he wouldn't mind not defining himself as a "Wikipedia sex worker" after consensus has established that is a dumb thing for anyone to be doing (seriously, that is the specific dispute that triggered this bullshit), then let him quit.
But no. Drmies is a man. His feelings matter. He is doing important work. BrownHairedGirl is just a silly little girl, wasting her time on her silly work.
John did this for the readers. She needed to be told. She needed to be put in her place. He will drag her (by the hair, naturally) to a noticeboard to be topic banned from the area she is the recognised Wikipedia expert in, if she gives him any more of her back talk.
Welcome to Wikipedia. They're literally blind to who they are and what they do. You can tell them a thousand times, and Lord knows the world has tried, it won't sink in.
BrownHairedGirl has been subject to sexist abuse like this for years, which for all its sexism, is still just basically abuse. Theoretically prohibited attacks of a personal nature, the gendered overtones merely an accepted part of Wikipedia culture. Not for the first time, she rose to the bait, and got served with a double helping back.
It is understandable that she tries to fight these battles on her own. After all, who could should she possibly turn to for help? Which of her fellow Administrators. Maybe Drmies? He is, after all, regularly boastful about how he is a feminist and all. And powerful, as John says. Maybe she should turn to the other powerful women of Wikipedia for a bit of sisterly backup. Maybe Ealdgyth, Bishonen, or Opabina Regalis. Yeah, they'll show Drmies who is boss, his Wikipedia girlfriends.
He's the boss.
John from Idegon here, is obviously his loyal and humble servant. All very Medieval, is it not? John of Idegon more like.
On that note.....
Always good to know the proper form of address the men of Wikipedia wish to use. He goes by John in real life. Is that because his real name sounds a little less manly? Dwaine, for example?Idegon is my made up name for the Ontario, Oregon micropolitan area, an area in Eastern Oregon and Western Idaho, not quite in the Boise metropolitan area, and politically and philosophically as far away from Portland as you can possibly get.
In October of 2013, I changed my name from Gtwfan52 to John from Idegon. Although the Gtwfan52 name had served me well for nearly two years, I feel that as long as I am going to continue doing this, I should have a proper name for people to address me by. I've been answering to John for a long while IRL, so why not here too?
Oh, and there's this......
What? You mean you didn't realise from the above heartfelt defence of all that is noble and right in the world of encyclopedia making, that this Knight of Wikipedia has a favourite railroad? Two, in fact.By the way, "Gtwfan" referenced one of my two all time favorite railroads, the Grand Trunk Western. The other is the South Shore.
Yeah, 'fraid so. This is Wikipedia. A place where a woman can't even be subjected to sexist abuse by real men, like steelworkers and shit. Was he ever even really a hotel manager? Could he have perhaps been their janitor, his wonderful story of the calendar in the locker having merely been overheard as workplace gossip, perhaps being embellished with a little fantasy role play of what he would do if he had real power over women in real life?
Oh wise and benevolent John of Idegon. Please drag me to your office and bestow your kind favours on me, your ever loyal hard working servant.
Wikipedia. It's all fucked up.