Nowhere near as active as I used to be – mostly due to being busy doing other things, but also because Wikipedia as a community has proven itself absolutely incapable of:
- dealing with editors (including administrators!!) who persistently violate WP:CIVIL despite repeated blocks
- identifying and dealing with editors (especially administrators!!) who persistently WP:GAME the system to suit their philosophical ideology
- identifying and dealing with editors who are WP:NOTHERE; examples include:
- those who WP:PLAYPOLICY to pursue personal goals/crusades, largely to the detriment of the encyclopedia
- those who WP:BATTLEGROUND, sometimes due to an inability to accept the outcome(s) of community discussion(s) they disagree with; subsequent behaviours often involve various levels of incivility, stonewalling, gaslighting, brigading and attempts to relitigate recently closed discussions at every opportunity
- WP:MOS warriors who WP:PLAYPOLICY in their quest to enforce their own preferences, disregarding guidelines such as MOS:VAR and ignoring common sense
- likely paid accounts or farms that often participate benignly for the most part, at least initially and often at AFD, before defending questionable articles en-masse or switching focus to push a particular POV in a controversial topic area
- understanding and following it's own policies/guidelines (particularly WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:NOT, WP:C); allowing small groups of editors to consistently violate or abuse these fundamentals harms the project immeasurably
- differentiating between speculation, opinions and facts, often in violation of WP:NPOV/WP:CRYSTAL (N.B. opinion pieces are only reliable sources of the authors opinion; one person's truth ≠ fact)
- applying WP:NOTDEM/WP:VOTE consistently, especially in areas such as WP:XFD, where groups of editors often sway outcomes by weight of numbers and WP:GAMING tactics (including by administrators!!) despite their non-policy/guideline based WP:ATA !votes; closers who correctly weight the arguments routinely get accused of WP:SUPERVOTING
- producing coherent subject notability guidelines; as with most areas, groups of editors who share a narrow interest produce distorted results, such as criteria that justify articles with zero chance of ever having any WP:GNG-level sourcing and facilitate bot-like mass-creation of worthless micro-stubs (essentially nothing more than database entries) and synthesis from bare statistics; attempts to improve guidelines are generally countered by various WP:GAMING tactics (including by administrators!!)
- It is startling how many administrators (often those from the early days) have failed to adjust to changed consensus in this area, and still argue to keep everything that barely scrapes over very low bar criterion but has almost no substantive sourcing; or worse, fail to weight !votes correctly when closing discussions as a result of their intransigence
- addressing any of its fundamental problems
All of which (at times) makes it a rather unpleasant and frustrating experience.
Currently busy doing...
- Lots of interesting things away from here!
Note to patrollers: Anyone is free to contribute to these pages – please do not revert any changes except for obvious vandalism. Thanks.
|The Editor's Barnstar|
|For your excellent expansion work on Étienne van Zuylen van Nyevelt' article. Thanks! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)|
|The Citation Barnstar|
In recognition of your continued efforts in adding citations to List of Microsoft codenames...
|The Working Man's Barnstar|
|For all your hard work on WikiProject Darts recently. Great addition to the project. Mr.Kennedy1 talk 15:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)|
|The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar|
|For reverting multiple vandalism I award you this barnstar. Keep up the good work! Tsange ►talk 19:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)|