User:Ihardlythinkso

This editor has withdrawn from editing List of chess variants article due to his objection over this confounding reorg. --Ihardlythinkso (talk) May 2016 (UTC)

This example uses algebraic notation.


Because I do not hope to turn again
Because I do not hope
Because I do not hope to turn

— T. S. Eliot, "Ash Wednesday"


The Copyeditor's Barnstar
To Ihardlythinkso for attentive edits to Zaw Htet Ko Ko, Zayar Thaw‎, Filep Karma‎, Nilar Thein‎, and Su Su Nway. -- Khazar (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


The Working Man's Barnstar
For making the chess notation tag much nicer on many pages. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


The Original Barnstar
Shame there isn't a specific barnstar for boardgamers... Anyway, I just wanted to say: nice work today on Xiangqi and a couple of other board game articles. Keep it up! Yunshui 雲‍水 14:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


A Barnstar!
Golden Wiki Award
Thanks for your recent contributions! 66.87.7.19 (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


[re some copyedits I made at 1950s American automobile culture]

You're doing great work with that article, keep it up. Malleus Fatuorum 08:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Danke! (Coming from you, it is a great compliment.) Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I recognise quality when I see it. Sadly I don't see it often enough. Malleus Fatuorum 09:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


The Chess Barnstar
Thank you for your support for expanding the knowledge of Chess and board games for the safety and expansion of Wikipedia. Please accept this sign of appreciation and goodwill, for your ways of improving tactics and solving sources for the game of Chess; you deserve it. Keep it up. --GoShow (............................) 21:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


The Surreal Barnstar
For being ultimately awesome. ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


The Writer's Barnstar
For your excellent (and myriad!) chess articles, I award you this writer's barnstar :). Ironholds (talk) 01:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


precise praise and consolation
Thank you for quality articles on chess and other boardgames such as Xiangqi, for stressing the importance of reading and writing competence, for "I make it a point in life to not allow myself to 'hope' about anything. It shuts down thinking", for precise praise ("Eric neither minces words, nor wastes them. [Ever!]"), and consolation ("Whatever gets you thru the night, it's alright, it's alright."), - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda! p.s. As clarification, I didn't create article Xiangqi am just a lowly copyeditor there; I did create article Game of the Three Kingdoms however, a xiangqi variant. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


The Original Barnstar
For fine editing among challenges. 75* 17:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For your good thoughts and seeing things as they are on here! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


The Chess Barnstar
Thanks for you help with McDonnell Gambit. Michael james campbell (talk) 21:20, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


Other inspiration: Quotes by others
Each has been copied to here from its original location. Source locations are sometimes given in square brackets.
  • So, Jclemens, the pathetic little pussy who probably thinks being a janitor is a step up in life, gets to cast lies against me and get away with it? Then I can't even tell him he's a fucking asshole? Well, how fair is that? OrangeMarlin Talk • Contributions 10:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I was thinking yesterday, in all my life, I have never been so harassed, wantonly smeared, blatantly lied about or otherwise trashed as I've been on this website. Not even nearly. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
  • So long as it pretends to be a rational, process-driven, consensus-based system it will attract editors who expect that kind of a system, and all sorts of crap will happen as they each in turn learn the hard way that it isn't. It is just creating endless headaches out of misguided loyalty to ideals it doesn't practice. Ludwigs2 05:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I first got involved with WP because it seemed so wonderfully quixotic, hoping that maybe it could work, becoming more determined that it should work the more time I invested in it, finally growing to be disillusioned after I learned that it was collectively even stupider than I am and a whole lot more dishonest than I will ever be. I mean, I can fool myself sometimes, but I don't try to fool others, apart from grooming myself in the mirror. That place is loaded with corruption and incompetence and, worst of all, hypocrisy. Ross McPherson, 14 May 2015 9:03 pm [from Wikipediocracy.com]
  • The blunder was not realising the nature of the place when I first got involved, otherwise I would never have got involved. It is supposed to be an encyclopaedia not a game of politics. On the other hand, I wouldn't mind the politics if it were good, clean fun but it isn't. No democratic society engages in politics that low. Secretive, vindictive and terminal - that kind of politics is found in dictatorships. Ross McPherson, 20 Oct 2014 4:45 am [from Wikipediocracy.com]
  • [...] the Civility pillar of Wikipedia [...] is poorly and chaotically defined. The problem is Wikipedia is unprincipled: there are far more editors willing to jump in an ANI or talk page kerfuffle to talk about a specific incident than discuss underlying principles on the WP:Civility talk page and actually come to a consensus. It's choosing drama over hard work. Gerardw (talk) 00:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • There is a clear and evident danger that the present civility policy can be and has been used to stifle dissent, not to prevent disruption. There is also clear evidence that some administrators focus on the perceived incivility of those they are hostile to while ignoring it in their friends and colleagues [...]. Malleus Fatuorum 20:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The only good civility policy is a deleted civility policy. Malleus Fatuorum 17:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The way to avoid "incivility" is to avoid the triggers for it. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The blocking policy, or more precisely what has become the practice for blocking, treats non-admin editors like naughty children. Which is quite simply insulting, and in itself a violation of the civility policy. Malleus Fatuorum 01:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The fundamental problem here is that AN/I is dominated by the irresponsible, the responsible generally won't go anywhere near it, and non-admins most clearly don't have the same rights there to speak as admins do. Admins can come in and lob charges at regular editors with narry a diff, but if a non-admin challenges them, they are ignored or chastized. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I loathe ANI and avoid it [at] all costs, only coming here [AN] if I find it necessary, and even then I feel like my time is wasted. I cannot ever remember leaving a thread in which something productive came of it. Most often, if I have a problem and I come here, it's likely I'll be blamed for whatever problem I have by editors who have no idea what they're talking about. Very serious problems get sidetracked by pointless banter, engaged by chronic posters whose time is spent primarily here. It frustrates people who come here looking for help. Moni3 (talk) 02:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • [re WP:ANI] Nothing good ever comes from that place. Malleus Fatuorum 22:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Some administrators are people who are vile and despicable individuals, who back stab you, who vary their policy to suit their ends, whose arguments are pathetic self-justifications aimed at serving their own personal needs. Some administrators routinely and habitually break social norms of courtesy in order to abuse other users. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The truth is that I would be embarrassed to be held to the same standard that administrators are held to, which is basically no standard at all. Malleus Fatuorum 03:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately a kick in the bollocks is an occupational hazard of speaking truth to power. Particularly when it's in the hands, or rather boots, of the infantile. Adminfants are the curse of WP. Writegeist (talk) 18:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The problem in Wikipedia is, for the most part, administrative. We allow children to be admins. We appoint them for life. GregJackP Boomer! 21:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Terms like "disruption" and "battlefield mentality" can be tossed around and used by some with as much pretense at fairness as in civility cases. Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • How have we come to this place, where most of the civility police are constitutionally incapable of distinguishing between polite cruelty and genuine civility, and between bullying and frankness? Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  • In what way is "sycophantic" or "wikilawyer", the use of both of which resulted in blocks, "foul language"? [...] What's going on here has absolutely nothing to do with "foul language". It's an opportunity for revenge, pure and simple. Malleus Fatuorum 17:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "Personal attack" is simply a euphemism for anything that someone with more guns than you have takes exception to. Malleus Fatuorum 02:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • It's a bullying culture, that attracts and rewards bullying. Good people are willing to come to the bullying forums of wp:ANI and other noticeboards a few times, but get burnt out. The forums self-select down to those who find the negativity personally satisfying. At personal cost to many individuals who matter, and at cost of undermining the Wikipedia project and the crowd-sourced / freeware movement generally. [User:Doncram, user page]
  • The way to deal with bullies is to refuse to be bullied, and to let them know they may have bitten off more than they can chew if they persist. Malleus Fatuorum 13:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Silence is often considered to be a tacit admission of guilt. Eric Corbett 17:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • [...] "disruptive", which seems to have become a synonym for "anything I don't like". Malleus Fatuorum 03:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Why is it that so many administrators lace their admonitions with threats? Because they can? Malleus Fatuorum 03:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Delivering petty threats on talk pages while threatening further action if I respond is OK on Wikipedia. Fabricating accusations of name-calling against me without producing any diffs is OK on Wikipedia. Excruciatingly lame incivility in an edit summary after I call you out for breaking a guideline is OK on Wikipedia. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • A-holes are ten a penny around here. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Name six ways we're better than chickens. See? No one can do it. You know why? Because chickens are decent people. You don't see chickens hanging around in drug gangs, do you? No. You don't see chickens strappin' someone to a chair and hookin' up their nuts to a car battery. And when's the last time you heard about a chicken who came home from work and beat the shit out of his hen? Huh? It doesn't happen. You know why? Because chickens are decent people. — George Carlin, Napalm and Silly Putty
  • Persons who faint when they hear disagreement can host tea parties in Stockholm. Some discussions and debates take time to resolve, and free discussion is better than more authoritarianism. Wikipedia has enough apparently authoritarian personalities clamoring for topic bans and blocks whenever there is conflict, and they should be repudiated. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • When an aggressive Randy-style editor insists on his version, editors are in peril should they contest it. Those messes should be left to stand as monuments to the stupidity of this dysfunctional administrative system. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The notion of crowds creating solutions appeals to our desire to believe that working together we can do anything, but in terms of innovation it is just ridiculous. ¶ There is no crowd in crowdsourcing. There are only virtuosos, usually uniquely talented, highly trained people who have worked for decades in a field. Frequently, these innovators have been funded through failure after failure. From their fervent brains spring new ideas. The crowd has nothing to do with it. The crowd solves nothing, creates nothing. ¶ What really happens in crowdsourcing as it is practiced in wide variety of contexts, from Wikipedia to open source to scientific research, is that a problem is broadcast to a large number of people with varying forms of expertise. Then individuals motivated by obsession, competition, money or all three apply their individual talent to creating a solution. ¶ Just look at the successes of crowdsourcing to see how the crowd is an illusion. ¶ Wikipedia seems like a good example of a crowd of people who have created a great resource. But at a conference last year I asked Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales about how articles were created. He said that the vast majority are the product of a motivated individual. After articles are created, they are curated–corrected, improved and extended—by many different people. Some articles are indeed group creations that evolved out of a sentence or two. But if you took away all of the articles that were individual creations, Wikipedia would have very little left. — Dan Woods, "The Myth of Crowdsourcing", Forbes, 29 September 2009
  • I took the article from its inception in 2001 and studied as many of the 8,000+ edits as possible. The conclusion was that the overwhelming majority of the edits were complete nonsense. What kept the article on course was a very small group of determined users who fought back any kind of reversion. I interviewed these users, who turned out to be subject-matter experts, without exception, and they confirmed that it was dispiriting keeping this up against a tidal wave of nonsense. One of them has pretty much left, anyway. So, what prevents articles from degrading is a small core of users or 'caretakers'. When they leave, the article rots away. I have a number of examples of this. Quisquiliae (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Mistakes by non admins result in blocks. Mistakes by admins result in so much hypocritical bollocks it would be hard to know where to start. Malleus Fatuorum, 25 June 2010
  • Constructive ways of sanctioning conduct in experienced and productive editors are rarely used because Wikipedia gives the right to jerk around and block experienced and productive editors to hundreds of people who are not experienced and productive editors, and have no background or qualification whatsoever that might equip them to handle such matters in an aware manner. This is the root inanity of Wikipedia, that powers the fraught environment we have here for editors who want to actually write Wikipedia. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Content creation is now secondary as far as admins are concerned, indeed admins who create content are treated worse than those who just make sysop edits. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • [re what administrators do] Andrew [reference to User:Andrew Davidson] you do realize that bureaucracy is most of what we do? We go to places where other people have made decisions and push buttons. Skill in bureaucracy is far more important than skill in content creation. Chillum 14:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • [re RfA !voters] Vocal content fiends always come and go, and usually their behavior is panned by the larger community and they go away once they've received enough criticism. Swarm ♠ 10:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Aren't we more the remainder of all human knowledge divided by the lowest uncommon denominator? Fifelfoo (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Please remember that the universe is 15 billion years old and our sun will expand and irradiate the earth in 1 billion years (perhaps making a moon or two of an outer planet comfy). You don't need to feel responsible for everything, even on Wikipedia. Take it easy! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Blocking is as violent and hostile an action as can well be performed on this site. Bishonen | talk 00:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC).
  • [...] very rarely do blocks de-escalate a volatile situation; they alienate, they anger, and they make people indignant in the long-term. Alakzi (talk) 16:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • [Penyulap RfA] The WP:indefray is a weapon that only destroys the project, it wipes the memory of the user, so they can't recognise the editor who continues to cause trouble when they return, it makes the bad behaviour worse each time because it educates the target, and it only ever keeps away the people with integrity who simply abandon the project. Brilliant. Just brilliant. Penyulap, 24 July 2012
  • The unfortunate fact of the matter is that some of us are not in this for smug self-satisfaction at "being the better person", and would rather not feel demeaned by "playing along" with the game. Badger Drink (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • What was, was. What is, is. What's gonna be, ... is gonna be. — Archie Bunker
  • It is as it is, and it will be as it must be. — Robert G. Ingersoll, 1896
  • That's alls I can stands, cuz I can't stands n'more! — Popeye
  • The abuse itself is not a surprise. Power leads to power trips. The problem is that Wikipedia, systemically, doesn't care. It has principles to protect against popularity contests and admin abuse, but the principles are enforced by.... popularity contests and admins. Mindbunny (talk) 03:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
  • [Penyulap RfA] Stress relief is humour and taking a break where possible, although support is the best relief from stress. That is why it is so important to narrow the gap, and get rid of the 'us and them' bullshit mentality of the admins Vs nonadmins. It's a trait of a class society where police are used to keep the lower classes under control. It doesn't work in a classless community like wikipedia. Still, trying to fight the tendency of a community mentality turning into a mob mentality is not so easy where the indefray is used heavily. Penyulap, 24 July 2012
  • I have this problem where I don't really care about Wikipedia editors (myself included, of course), just about article content, and don't like to waste my time with internal squabbling, even if it involves myself. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 06:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Editor retention [WikiProject Editor Retention] isn't about editor retention at all. What it's about is trying to entice new editors to hang around. Nobody cares about the replaceable units of work known as experienced editors. Malleus Fatuorum 04:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Every attack I made was a counterpunch. I mean, they attacked me first and I hit them back and maybe harder than they hit me. But the fact is that I’ve been attacked pretty viciously by some of these guys. And I have a lot of respect for numerous people on the stage. I will tell you, I have great respect for some of the people on the stage. But I have been attacked and I counterpunch. I didn’t start the attacks. — Donald Trump, 2 August 2015
  • If someone can feel free to blatantly poke a hornet's nest until they get stung, and be vindicated merely because they didn't use cusswords, then I really have no further business to be conducted here. Badger Drink 22:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I'll not be joining in another debate about the use of "incivil" rude words, when I've yet again been accused of all manner of bullshit. ANI is blind to such things. Parrot of Doom 20:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Someone to call bullshit is always a good thing. Someone to actually *say* bullshit (or cunt) is even better. Errant (chat!) 00:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm tired of reading thousands of posts about incivility written by people who don't seem to grasp a basic truth obvious even to an intuitive 5-year-old: incivility springs from frustration. There's no interest in understanding why constructive editors routinely end up so frustrated that they snap (the answer is obvious to anyone who's edited in the trenches, but such experience is increasingly rare these days). Incivility is viewed as a personal failing, rather than a symptom of serious underlying systemic problems. So there's an obsessive interest in "enforcing" civility as an end unto itself, by penalizing individual acts of incivility with blocks. That's a superficial and counterproductive approach, yet everyone seems baffled that the more we do to "enforce" civility, the more toxic this site's atmosphere becomes. MastCell Talk 19:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • A recurring problem with handling disputes on Wikipedia is the tendency for passersby to opine about the seemingly simple things like who's being uncivil to whom without really taking the time to understand the context. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Without question, the tolerance of bullying and harassment or incompetence in dealing with it, is a very real fault of Wikipedia and should not be disregarded on the basis that victims need to get a thicker skin or just walk away. The Devil's Advocate, Wed Jun 12, 2013 10:48 pm [from Wikipediocracy.com]
  • Painful and demeaning experiences tend to discourage volunteers, and it's increasingly painful to be told to "move on", assume good faith, develop a thicker skin, stop being offended, etc., and just get back to work. -- Djembayz (talk) 15:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The more I'm told to "just ignore it and go back to work", the less I feel like editing. -- Djembayz (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • What I expect of you [reference to User:Ched] is what I expect of everyone, consistency. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Civility is a trivial concern compared with making an artcle worse than it was before one touched it. Tarc (talk) 22:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • My view is that a major part of the job of admins is to assist our creative contributors, not to police them - technically it might be a subtle difference, but it's a big difference in terms of attitude. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • It is a crazed notion that content builders are of less value than admins. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The problem is that non-content creators have a mistaken idea that they are as valuable to the project as those who create content. The purpose of admins should be to keep the riff-raff away from the content creators. GregJackP Boomer! 20:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • [...] we need to be rid of non-editor admins entirely [...]  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The current WMF approach seems to be aimed at replacing solid and competent content builders with neutered, superficially "civil" and politically correct versions of Randy. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • It is not so much a functioning admin system as a bizairre entertainment system, presenting puzzling and wondrous performers called admins, some behaving as though they have escaped from the pages of Alice in Wonderland. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • It is, after all, the abuse that most of us experienced there, and the utter lack of accountability when we attempted to find someone to deal with it, that are at the heart of the unhappiness of most people here. Roger Pearse, 12 Jun 2013 8:18 pm [from Wikipediocracy.com]
  • I think retaliatory and buddy actions are pretty much the worst actions an admin can do. Bishonen | talk 15:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC).
  • I've put Wikipedia at arm's length because of "cult of personality"-based, systemic abuses by "entitled" admins, and associated issues of "good ol' boy" cronyism, me-too-ism, and diffuse but stifling fear of challenging these pushy, censorious, charismatic admin "personalities", who have usurped ArbCom's authority and purpose, and turned WP:AE, WP:ANI and related administrative noticeboards into an above-the-law regime of make-it-up-as-you-go-along, arbitrary (in the negative sense), selective, even abusive and vindictive enforcement, with no checks and balances. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 13:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Admins, Checkusers (and Arbs too for that matter) have been ignoring all rules and hindering ordinary writing editors for as long as Wikipedia has been invented. Nothing is going to change because most of those who put themselves up for these lofty positions are little more than tin gods with a frustrated lust for power in real life, Wikipedia provides them with the powers and platforms which real life so very wisely denies them. Only Arbs and Admins can change this situation, and they are not going to admit their all too apparent inadequacies by changing anything. Accept that, and Wikipedia becomes a lot easier. Giano 12:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The brutal fact is that a work of reference which depends mainly on volunteer amateurs, whose good faith, ability and expertise are unknown, and whose contributions are largely unchecked, cannot be other than unreliable. I don't think there's a way of telling what proportion of Wikipedia entries are deficient, whether because of the writer's bias, mischief or lack of knowledge. It's clear that a significant number are questionable, sufficient to lead us to suspect all entries. But to do the right thing – vetting all contributors or contributions – would be impractical and hugely expensive. There is no easy solution. We may just have to accept that Wikipedia's undoubted usefulness comes at the price of occasional – perhaps frequent – inaccuracy. That is a sad conclusion to reach about an encyclopedia. — Marcel Berlins, The Guardian, Tuesday 27 January 2009
  • Complaints in general are handled poorly at Wikipedia so to think a complaint against an admin on an administrative noticeboard would be handled with any sort of unbiased logic is just wishful thinking. [...] I guess to dare question the mistreatment of users who have large sums of friends is a bad idea here at Wikipedia and their friends take it as an affront. I simply can't be involved in a system that works like this, it is pointless and infuriating. AmericanDad86 (talk) 04:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • In my experience the men who don't write much, are a little more difficult to deal with than the so-called content editors. Victoria (talk) 01:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • In re-reading some of my older talk page posts, it surprised me that sometimes I seem to come off as being rather arrogant. I don't think I'm that way in real life, at least I hope I'm not, but I guess I'll never know because in real life I don't have someone recording and indefinitely archiving everything I say. -- Adjwilley (talk) 17:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • If you want to keep editors you have to control the block-mad administrators. Eric Corbett 02:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • [RfA !vote] Oppose. Likely to misuse the tools in unpredictable ways, thereby unlikely to inspire the sense of dread and inevitable doom of systematically defective administrators. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • The community spent two weeks discussing extending a six month topic ban to a six month topic ban when it was already a six month topic ban. How stupid is that? Apteva (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia's civility policy, or its uneven application, will be the death of it. And anyone who can't see that is a fucking idiot, aka an administrator. Eric Corbett 21:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • RfA is the internet's answer to stoning. It hasn't changed for years, and it won't be changing any time soon. That may be dramatic, defeatist, uncollegiate and a whole bunch of other things with negative connotations, but it ain't wrong. —WFC— FL wishlist 00:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Finger-wagging at other editors for their supposed 'incivility' whilst tossing out over-the-top personal insults [...] reveals the absolute worst, most poisonous type of editor: the hypocrite. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • [Penyulap RfA] [...] I don't put much thought into anything so it's hard to know how best to get revenge sometimes. Penyulap, 24 July 2012
  • [Penyulap RfA] Someone told me to "Be Bold" so I'm like well ok then if you say so, I'm here anyhow I may as well, so I thanked them politely and set about my work. I thought I should make at least one exception though, to do at least one thing right, so I figured just look at the rule page and pick the first thing I see and obey that one rule, and so it says first off 'ignore all rules' so I'm like oh well, it's as good as any, so I [...] Penyulap, 24 July 2012
  • [Penyulap RfA] I try my best not to edit anything really, but I just get tricked into it sometimes, I guess I edit mostly out of spite. Penyulap, 24 July 2012
  • Being an admin, what does that involve, not any actual work at all, plus having an entourage follow you everywhere whining and complaining about everything you do. Hey, come to think of it don't I do that already? Penyulap 21:29, 23 Jul 2012 (UTC)
  • [Penyulap RfA !vote] Oppose [...] User creates undetectable, pernicious sock puppets to vandalise the encyclopædia, which is not of administrator quality. ⇒TAP 18:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  • [to User:BenKovitz/Ben Kovitz] Also, you say, "Larry was skeptical at first." This is probably true, because I am skeptical of everything at first, even my own ideas. --Larry Sanger (talk) 05:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • [to User:HelenOnline] I didn't call you an asshole, I asked you not to be an asshole [...] — kwami (talk) 08:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • [Kafziel RFAR] I'm allowed to comment, and the timbre of my contempt for this process is proportional to the illogical justification and injustice of this process. --ColonelHenry (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • [User:Gnostic, original user page] I don't edit on wikipedia because of all the stupid people and the stupid rules, but I read it obsessively. My interests include religion, meditation, poker, games, computers, philosophy, and other awesome things. 06:27, December 10, 2008
  • WP isn't a refuge for the mentally unstable, in fact it's probably one of the the last places anyone with mental health issues should be. Eric Corbett 23:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Consistency isn't one of this place's strong points. Unless you count inconsistency as being consistent... Intothatdarkness 18:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm tired of being insulted by shitbirds and unemployed losers. Kumioko BannedEditor (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Most PhD's are possessed with the largest and simultaneously the most fragile of egos. The mere thought of being wrong or losing an argument is just too much to bear, so one retreats into bureaucratic sidestepping and circular arguments. What a sham. 74.70.107.142 (talk) 10:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • How can I act in good faith when I am convinced that administrators are not acting in good faith? [...] When I came to Wikipedia I had faith in it and I was polite. Now, I have lost my faith and have social problems. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Fleet Command (talk) 04:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
  • In general, Wikipedia's sick thrive on the incivility of others, they hunt it down and seek it out. Giano, User:Giano/On civility & Wikipedia in general
  • [re User:Kaldari] Is there any place other than Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation where one can one find so many highly-placed individuals who are so lacking in self-awareness? Gregory Kohs, Examiner.com, 8 March 2014
  • [Beeblebrox ANI] Beeblebrox has attempted to exculpate himself by asserting that his comments were directed not to me "individually", but only to my argument. I hold that as my argument is the result and derivation of my intellect, and the essence of my presence on Wikipedia, his comments do amount to an ad hominem attack. On the otherhand, if remarks of "tinfoil hats" and "utter lunancy" are deemed acceptable, provided one carefully directs them to others' arguments, then I will thank you for the guidance, apologize for this lengthy complaint, and adjust my standards accordingly. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Either unblock me or I will disembowel myself, you took away my ability to help people; and I have nothing else but bills I can't pay and yelling mouths I can't feed. CensoredScribe (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • [...] this amazing project is also home to a community that belittles and harasses its own members for the most idiotic and childish reasons (e.g. grudges, boredom, amusement, sport, dirty politics). FASTILY (TALK) 07:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  • [...] it's easy, and perhaps even fun to ostracize and single an editor out, seduce the masses with promises of drama, and freely harass and attack that poor soul without fear of retribution. During such times, and even in general, we have a tendency to focus on the negative and overlook the positive; stellar contributions are rewarded with silence, and mistakes, regardless of how minute or well-intentioned, are met with aggressive complaints and/or trips to AN/ANI. FASTILY (TALK) 07:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  • [...] I believe that Wikipedia is going to destroy itself through mob-mentality and infighting. This project is ill, very ill, and I fear for its future. FASTILY (TALK) 07:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  • WP has one fundamental problem it refuses to even recognise, and it's this. "Anyone can edit" isn't the same as saying "anyone can edit anything". Malleus, 13 April 2014 5:06 pm [from Wikipediocracy.com]
  • [...] nothing will be done to protect you [reference is to User:Cwmhiraeth] or other content builders from further depredation. The admins who attacked you will be left free to make unsubstantiated attacks again. Wikipedia has become an admin playground and a content builder graveyard. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • [...] this place is one step removed from an anarchy, so our "standard practice" that gets enforced in any particular case varies tremendously depending on which admin(s) and arb(s) and kibitzer(s) feel strongly about the editor in question. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • [...] one of the many appalling features of AN/I, in this case the ability of anyone to write whatever lies they like about someone they would like to get out of the way. In other words, to make personal attacks with no fear of negative consequences. HiLo48 (talk) 07:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Other Administrators never show the courage to do something effective about badly behaved Admins. HiLo48 (talk) 08:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I can't say I'm outraged. Other people do worse. Of course, there are many mathematicians who are more or less honest. But almost all of them are conformists. They are more or less honest, but they tolerate those who are not honest. — Grigori Perelman
  • It is not people who break ethical standards who are regarded as aliens. It is people like me who are isolated. — Grigori Perelman
  • John Cline (talk) 18:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC):

At the end of the day
 When your best is in play
 Don't wonder about what's amiss
 For it's already known
 As the 'good book' has shown
The crowd will clamor: Barabbas!

  • Rosales et al. electrocuted lab rats, and then observed high levels of bruxism-like muscular activity in rats that were allowed to watch this treatment compared to rats that did not see it. They proposed that the rats who witnessed the electrocution of other rats were under emotional stress which may have caused the bruxism-like behavior. [from Bruxism#Psychosocial factors]
  • AN/I is worse than useless. It supports, endorses and effectively encourages bad behaviour. HiLo48 (talk) 09:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Playing with their little blockhammers is what sysops become sysops for. Writegeist (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • There is little wrong with Wikipedia's fundamental ideals, or people attracted by them; only with the reality of the implementation. HRIP7/Andreas Kolbe, 20 June 2014 2:08 pm [from Wikipediocracy.com]
  • I devoted a lot of time to this project and tried so hard to make it better. In the end though, the toxic environment, the entrenched abusive admins and constant insults got to me. 108.45.104.158 [Kumioko] (talk) 02:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  • [...] never again will I venture onto ANI or any similar admin-related pages, either to resolve an issue, or to respond to somebody else's issue; I'm here to write articles, nothing else. [...] I apologise to those who've supported me in the past, but good-faith content editors can only put up with so much nonsense before they begin to question what good, if any, they're doing here. [User:Parrot of Doom, user Talk header]
  • [...] the "janitor" analogy doesn't reflect the true power admins here possess. Janitors don't have the power to ban entrants from participating in activities, policemen do. Alas, too many of the police here prefer to sit on their hands and claim to be janitors. And the project suffers. Townlake (talk) 20:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • [...] the behaviour of certain individuals in discussions on here indicates a distinct lack of good faith towards the goodwill of editors who edit here without compensation. I've seen many very decent editors forced out of the project by constant berating and lack of good faith in what they do. [User:Dr. Blofeld/Encyclopedia problems]
  • Jesus is just another mythological creature as far as I'm concerned. Fervent Christians or Muslims might want to unwatch this page [User talk:Eric Corbett], as I have no time for either. Or even for religion. Eric Corbett 23:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • [re: Neutral editors who have left the project] I know the complete list would be in the tens of thousands. It seems like many, if not most, of the editors who stick around have an agenda. Cla68, 16 June 2014 4:38am [from Wikipediocracy.com]
  • It was an incomplete Frankenchicken, a mashup of vampire arguments and zombie animosities, capable only of destroying hope before drifting into the frozen archives still bitterly seeking closure. NebY (talk) 15:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Giving advice is very hard if you don't know what you are talking about. 84.106.11.117 (talk) 01:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • It appears we have a new quasi-religious regime with ritual trappings. It will ferret out "toxic personalities" and then excommunicate them in a spirit of love, righteousness and purification. And I thought the admin system has reached the limits of craziness. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • [in converse w/ Eric Corbett] Would it make any difference to you if I claimed to be a female half-Indian/half-Inuit widow with one eye, fifteen children and a fairly severe ranking on the Asperger's scale? - Sitush (talk) 01:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • [to User:AlanM1, no doubt still in hurt from his unsuccessful RfA closed 29 July 2014] I don't think you're doing any good to this encyclopedia; instead I think you're just some loser troublesome stalker who doesn't have a life and trying to pick a fight. Note that I'm trying my very best to be civil here. Nutcases such as yourself DESERVE to have curses called down upon you. And yeah, BAN me if you wish. I do not wish to be part of this community if I have to deal with annoying fools like you. -Sk8erPrince (talk) 11:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Many of our best and brightest didn't get their bit until their 2nd go around (I barely passed my first time). Truth be told, most of our best and brightest aren't admin to begin with. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • [from Talk:Aron Ralston#Quality of writing] This article reads like an elementary school book report that was completed during the commercial breaks of American Idol. Weak-i-pedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.239.51 (talk) 06:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • [...] perfection is the province of the divine, not us mere mortals. Allegedly. Eric Corbett 19:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • [...] it's the mindset that seems to think that admins are somehow due extra respect which drives a wedge between decent editors and admins. Some admins are obviously just too full of themselves. --RexxS (talk) 15:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)--RexxS (talk) 15:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • If you understand that I care more about people and content than policy, you are quite right. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • [...] the type of people who instinctively oppose community bans seem, in general, to be statistically less likely to be dicks than those who instinctively support community bans [...] community bans are stupid, with no real benefit except the warm sanctimonious feeling they create [...] --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • [...] the massive disrespect towards regular editors of all kinds, some still around [but] many left, is one reason I see no further reason to give any contributions to Wikipedia [...] Skookum1 (talk) 08:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • WP's sheer raw vindictiveness would put the Mafia to shame. Eric Corbett 11:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • [...] incivility as it tends to be invoked here on WP more often than not simply means saying something I don't agree with, or upsets me. Besides, the easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one. Eric Corbett 20:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • If I get in an argument with someone about the death penalty and he says "if you don't want to get lethally injected, don't kill people," is that an accusation of murder? Wnt (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I love women, I'm even married to one! Malleus Fatuorum 21:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • [re WP:ANI] [...] too many brought before this kangaroo court are subjected to far worse personal attacks here than anything they've been accused of themselves. Eric Corbett 20:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not dying. It is transitioning from a project to write a great encyclopedia to a playground for social networkers. [...] There are over one thousand admins, far more than actually needed to block and ban the serious content builders that social networkers decide are offensive. Then peace will descend. There will be little left for admins to do apart from bathing in love and kindness with the social networkers and their special agendas. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I made civil replies to people who were civil to me. Anyone with a question, I answered. Anyone trying to give orders couched as requests [...], I politely declined. When the threats and demands started, [...] I gave them the benefit of the doubt, and spent plenty of time discussing, and then debating, and finally arguing, but they were not willing to accept anything less than obedience. But "civil" is not synonymous with "obsequious". At least, it wasn’t when I started here. Clearly, times have changed. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 20:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • [...] civility and politeness are two very different ideas, and politeness is by far the more important, even though it's unrecognised here on WP. Eric Corbett 00:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The characteristics of a dedicated volunteer editor—Gardner lists "fussy," "persnickety," and "intellectually self-confident"—are not those that urge the acceptance of changes like Visual Editor. — Tom Simonite, "The Decline of Wikipedia", MIT Technology Review, 22 October 2013
  • In July 2012, some editors started a page called WikiProject Editor Retention with the idea of creating a place to brainstorm ideas about helping newcomers and fostering a friendlier atmosphere. Today the most vibrant parts of that project’s discussion page have gripes about "bullying done by administrators," debates over whether "Wikipedia has become a bloody madhouse," and disputes featuring accusations such as "You registered an account today just to have a go at me?" — Tom Simonite, "The Decline of Wikipedia", MIT Technology Review, 22 October 2013
  • I thought we were here to build an encyclopedia, but obviously I was wrong. WP exists simply to remind me every day, again and again, of what a shit I am. Eric Corbett 21:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Respect is far far more important than civility. But there is a huge difference in that respect is (or should be) earned whereas, on Wikipedia at least, it seems that civility is a right accorded to any random fuckwit. pablo 19:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Profanity does not equal incivility, though they are often found together. WormTT(talk) 10:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • For many here, we've seen Wikipedia's idea of "civility" (WP:CIVIL (T-H-L)) as a political weapon to silence critics and kick people off the project. Police and politicians today can get rid of "troublemakers" with "disturbing the peace." Civility comes from culture and society. Wikipedia was founded by ultra-techno-libertarian anti-Scientology Objectivists from Usenet. The original founding community may be largely gone, but their norms and mores certainly are still around. Make all the policies you want, but you can't easily change a culture. The ones with the social and technical power have to want it to change. The Joy, 25 Oct 2014 1:30 pm [from Wikipediocracy.com]
  • I'm at an all time low in enthusiasm for this thing [Wikipedia] and find it incredibly hard at the moment to want to produce anything of value. And a large part of that is realising how this thing is being run and the poor will to overcome site problems. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Some people obviously find it easier to forgive than I do, which to be honest isn't difficult, as I never forgive. Eric Corbett 19:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Wiki has been highly dysfunctional and incapable of meaningful change since about 2007. PumpkinSky talk 00:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I've thought this place depressing for a good six to seven years now; I'm grateful so many editors continue to build the encyclopedia despite that. NE Ent 18:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • With the complete and total den of dysfunctional anarchy and incessant bickering and hate that is all over wiki, I'm PROUD TO BE A WIKI OUTCAST. PumpkinSky talk 22:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
  • After all that's happened to me in the last 3 years, I'm not afraid of anything nor anyone on wiki. PumpkinSky talk 00:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Talkpage-blocking is just a manifestation of the psychological need of cyberbullies to reinforce their self-esteem by punishing the blockee, thus believing "no matter how worthless I am, I am better than you." Triptych, 23 Nov 2014 10:01 pm [from Wikipediocracy.com]
  • There is an interesting study that shows that most dedicated volunteers are a common target of attacks from within their own community. There are two major reasons for such attacks: 1) some see the very active and selfless volunteers as raising standards too high and/or making regular volunteers look bad; 2) others see them as social rule-breakers; deviants, weirdos whose high and selfless activity is "just not right", they are threatening the community with their very existence (they are so different, there must be something wrong with them, they are not like regulars, and thus must be chased away). Piotrus, User:Piotrus/Morsels of wikiwisdom
  • The site's emphasis on superficial politeness has raised unctuous dissembling to an art form. We've all seen lots of comments where people got in their well-crafted (but very polite!) sarcastic remarks, twisting the knife by concluding with "cheers" or the like. [...] the ongoing corrosiveness of such discourse is a much more important issue than using bad words or occasional name-calling. (Which is more admirable in a way, because it's at least honest.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Rambling tangent about pie, the importance of pie, and the overwhelming need for pie. [from Isarra Candidate statement, Arbitration Committee Election 2014]
  • [Wbm1058 Candidate statement, Arbitration Committee Election 2014] I have not been subject to any law enforcement beyond a very few speeding and parking tickets.
  • Wikipedia is not really an encyclopedia because it takes no responsibility for its content. This is simply an internet resource where anyone can place any sourced information. In essence, one can prove or disprove anything using the argument to moderation and multiple sources, some of which belong to propaganda. My very best wishes, User:My very best wishes/Do not waste your time in Wikipedia
  • [...] I came to find Wikipedia a deeply unpleasant place compared to other professional and volunteer groups I'd been a part of. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • ANI is not supposed to be Wikipedia's version of the Colosseum where we engage in the public spectacle of thumbs-up, thumbs-down block this editor! (e.g. WP:PITCHFORKS). NE Ent 23:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • [...] our Admin system is broken. Admins won't block other Admins, no matter how badly behaved, and will rarely even criticise them. There are some great Admins, but that flaw in the system gets in the way of sensible and productive behaviour. HiLo48 (talk) 06:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • ArbCom does desysop bad apples, but only after considerable amounts of drama. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • [...] there is no effective system for removal of abusive administrators. Yes, ArbCom has removed rights from admins. However, it's not at all common. There is a strong belief that a significant subset of administrators are 'above the law', as it were. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • [re WP:ANI] On the occasions that I have this page on my watchlist because I'm directly involved in a discussion here (I hate this place usually and don't watch the drama the rest of the time, because that is often all it is), I've seen this kind of thing happen frequently enough to understand why there are a good number of editors who believe that there is a lack of equality and fairness in handing out preventive actions to admins and editors alike. It's why there has been a great number of recent proposals to reform de-sysoping and RfAs and whatnot, I also (yes, I realize it's OR/PO) believe that a reasonable amount of the decline in editors is that non-admins generally feel oppressed by administrators. The best analogy I can come up with to explain my belief is editors feel like WP:RANDY and they believe that admins are WP:EXPERT. — Technical 13 (e • t • c) 00:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • [User:Malleus Fatuorem Talk page header, 11 December 2010 – 8 April 2012] There are many aspects of wikipedia's governance that seem to me to be at best ill-considered and at worst corrupt, and little recognition that some things need to change. ¶ I appreciate that there are many good, talented, and honest people here, but there are far too many who are none of those things, concerned only with the status they acquire by doing whatever is required to climb up some greasy pole or other. I'm out of step with the way things are run here, and at best grudgingly tolerated by the children who run this site. I see that as a good thing, although I appreciate that there are others who see it as an excuse to look for any reason to block me, as my log amply demonstrates.
  • [from User:Malleus Fatuorem Talk page header, 17 December 2008 – 26 May 2009] I am outraged that the AdminWatch initiative to level the playing field between the standards of behaviour expected of administrators and non-administrators was taken to MFD. It may work, it may not, but the defensive attitudes being displayed by some administrators leave a bad taste in the mouth. No wonder that so many editors simply walk away from the project in the face of unchecked administrator abuse.
  • [to User:Only in death] What's a bog-standard? NE Ent 00:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • [from article Durian] Anthony Bourdain, a lover of durian, relates his encounter with the fruit thus: "Its taste can only be described as...indescribable, something you will either love or despise. ...Your breath will smell as if you'd been French-kissing your dead grandmother."
  • There is an undercurrent in discussions about the gender gap on Wikipedia that women will civilize the site; women are somehow thought to be "nicer" than men and they are seen as a counterbalance to the argumentative culture that often characterizes Wikipedia. However, Lam et. al. found in their research that articles with a high number of female editors tended to be more confrontational than those edited by men. The idea that women will civilize men is an old one and permeates Western culture (think of stories such as Beauty and the Beast), but it is a myth. Adrianne Wadewitz, "Wikipedia's gender gap and the complicated reality of systemic gender bias", HASTAC.org, 26 July 2013
  • The daily traffic on the drama boards degenerates into froth from social networkers seeking to punish content builders and self-preening admins who want to be grandees. Content builders are tolerated only if they keep their heads down and pretend things are okay. [...] The preening and posturings by some admins and dramatic manipulations and moralizings by some social networkers inflict unnecessary misery to content builders, but in the long run they amount to nothing. Ultimately only genuine additions to the encyclopaedia count. Despite all the obscuring froth and fluff, Wikipedia remains a noble project. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • [...] ANI is a disgusting venue and there are many people who literally spend their entire Wikipedia life there. It seldom solves anything. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is largely built by genuine and dedicated content builders, users who are rarely admins and get little recognition or support for what they do, but just get on with the job because it seems like the right thing to do. Some other users, such as self-righteous civility networkers who want everyone who doesn't agree with them punished and banned, and those that are here because they want to personally appear important, are damaging and irrelevant to the positive development of Wikipedia. [...] Some of the people who put themselves forward and claim the credit for Wikipedia are anything but noble. But Wikipedia is still alive and is still a noble cause. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC
  • It is for good reason that I have nicknamed WP 'revenge of the C-students.' Steeletrap (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The Wikipedia slime is inexorable, impossible to halt. Eric Corbett 22:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • There will never be a shortage of admins willing to bait users and then make punative, policy-violating blocks. There will however be a paucity of admins with the integrity to reverse them. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  • [template banner from article Strip poker] This article possibly contains original research. (July 2011)
  • [from a discussion at Village pump (policy) on gender-neutral language] In parts of the United States, teenagers have adopted yo as a gender neutral pronoun. How about we adopt that? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  • A correctly written Wikipedia article is essentially a directory of sources on the topic, rearranged into narrative form. – iridescent 07:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • [...] once one has been declared "bad" by the more drama-seeking and civility obsessed Admins, there is little one can do to change that, and victimization and unjust treatment will follow, just as Winter follows Autumn. Giano (talk) 09:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • [to User:DrChrissy] It is not about rationality or ethics. You are one of the few remaining genuine content contributors to Wikipedia. You are Wikipedia's principal contributor to articles on animal behaviour, some of which, like Pain in invertebrates, are tour de forces. You will never get centralised acknowledgement for that from "Wikipedia". Wikipedia maintains stability by periodically sacrificing valuable contributors like you. How else can those who cannot write a decent article be propitiated? --Epipelagic (talk) 08:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • There is enough of the medievalist in me to believe in good and evil as starting points for development. That part of me looks at Wikipedia as a Hellish invention, poisoning ethical and intellectual values with a mock semblance of those same values, all dressed up in the authoritative form of an encyclopaedia. Ross McPherson, 16 Oct 2014 9:05 pm [from Wikipediocracy.com]
  • The people’s encyclopaedia never really knows if it is an encyclopaedia first and a group of people second, or vice versa. When people are the priority, the encyclopaedia suffers. When the encyclopaedia is the priority, people suffer. Most Wikipedians struggle to get the right balance between these two messes. They don’t know if they should fight for an article or abandon it for the sake of peace and good will. The right balance is impossible. I believe the encyclopaedia should be closed down or completely re-organized so that people can work there in a safe environment. Failing that, the world needs to be informed about what sort of encyclopaedia Wikipedia is, or isn’t. Ross McPherson, 7 Aug 2013, http://eyeamross.com
  • The admin system needs to be overhauled and people given different tools on an individual basis who actually deserve them. I also think that this bureaucratic system really doesn't work for what is essentially a charity project. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • [from Yngvadottir RfA Support !vote] Honesty, intelligence, and self-criticism are needed in administrators. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I tend to start at the level of the screwdriver and the bar of soap before trying power tools. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • WP:AN/ANI is a lawless, rules-less, charter-less, mobbing, and illegitimate environment that even Arbcom doesn't dare confront. Triptych, 13 Jan 2015 4:20 pm [from Wikipediocracy.com]
  • The drama boards can always be counted on to confuse things and bring in random opponents with their own agendas. BMK (talk) 07:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • When people feel like they're being treated unfairly or in a domineering way on a systematic basis, they become agitated and act erratically. The civility police only serve to exacerbate the situation. It is usually to everybody's interest to examine what it is that made an editor behave in a certain way than punish them for it. Alakzi (talk) 11:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Criticism isn't incivility [...]. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • ANI often renders a distorted view of Wikipedia, our content-contributing editors, and the best methods for dispute resolution, and ANI is often misused and abused by some of our most contentious and problematic long-term users who have learned how to manipulate policy, the guidelines, and the ANI pitchforks-and-torches mentality to gain advantage in their often serial disputes. [...] ANI often contributes to a shoot-first, question-later mentality, and too often does not reduce the heat or lower the level of rhetoric. Snarky, sarcastic, and otherwise unhelpful comments from non-parties -- including some long-time administrators -- contribute to this atmosphere; [...] Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • [...] holding to and advancing opinions and positions that are unreasonably detached from those of the larger community, in effect showing a striking disregard for general community standards as well as other editors, on a consensus-based project, is literally not helpful to anyone, not given much weight, and only affects the project negatively. Swarm ♠ 22:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • [from Yahoo! News, 6 August 2015 Republican debate] "You’ve called women you don't like 'fat pigs, dogs, slobs and disgusting animals'", co-moderator Megyn Kelly said. "Only Rosie O’Donnell", Trump interjected, drawing applause. "Thank you."
  • "The unaccountable despots who run this place don't give a shit about you" [quote by User:Alakzi] is a general statement about the administrative/ArbCom/noticeboard/remedies system as a whole, and is a sentiment (perhaps unreasonably) shared to varying degrees by a non-trivial number of other editors.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The best it [Wikipedia] can offer is an inherently unstable, unreliable body of 'information' that no serious researcher would ever use. It is a smorgasboard for the blowfly of idle curiosity – that's all. The worst thing about it could be this – thousands of conscientious people toil there daily, captives to a system that doesn't really value them as people and which has no secure future for their achievements. Ross McPherson, 2 February 2014 at 12:42 am [from Wikipediocracy.com]
  • Wikipedia hands out mountains of beautifully packaged free 'information', making research for the slightly curious wonderfully easy. So of course world opinion is biased in its favour. I agree that parts of Wikipedia function the way they are supposed to – the parts the world most often sees. But open the door, step inside and try to fix just some of the many broken things! You are then in danger of vanishing through a hole in the floorboards or getting mugged by the vagrants that live there. Ross McPherson, 31 January 2014 at 3:28 pm [from Wikipediocracy.com]
  • Wikipedia doesn't do "major developments," from what I've observed. It's more like a slowly creeping accretion of the same kinds of rules, bureaucracy, petty bickering, and bad software they've always had, over an extended period of time. Midsize Jake, 11 August 2015 at 12:01 am [from Wikipediocracy.com]
  • There seems to be a regular misconception that every case brought to ANI has to end in a block or a ban of some kind for somebody. Very often the discussion clears the air and those involved can go home with a lesson learned and something to think about while they sit on the bus without stinking the rest of the passengers out with a fresh wet trout in their shopping bag. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Watchlist ANI? Nope nope nope. Start a dozen threads about how I'm a bad admin and a terrible person and a sock with a COI whose father smelt of elderberries and I still won't do it. That place is crazymaking. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I see it too often that editors pile on here [ANI] saying a particular user is disruptive and want a topic ban w/o evidence and the truth of the matter is that the user simply has a different POV than the crowd. Not flowing with the crowd is not a crime on Wikipedia. - TP 02:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I've found out editing Wikipedia as an IP is even worse than editing Wikipedia as a registered user. 82.231.41.7 (talk) 01:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Admins need to constantly be de-escalating situations and the only stick they should carry is the olive branch. Chillum 16:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I have been editing Wikipedia for just over five years, and hindsight suggest that I should have stopped five years ago. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • [from article Cardiopulmonary resuscitation] As per the American Heart Association, the beat of the Bee Gees song "Stayin' Alive" provides an ideal rhythm in terms of beats per minute to use for hands-only CPR. One can also hum Queen's "Another One Bites The Dust", which is exactly 100 beats-per-minute and contains a memorable repeating drum pattern.
  • [...] when I was an arbitrator I opposed the adoption of any policy by which a particular consequence would "automatically" ensue for a given type of action, in favor of exercising tailored discretion in each case [...] Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • We are increasingly losing high-level content contributors to ill-conceived administrative interventions.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The learning curve on Wikipedia is extremely steep; the number of people capable of putting words together intelligently while surviving the many pitfalls of Wikipedia, and doing all that for free, is vanishingly few.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • [Yngvadottir RfA, in response to "Why do you wish to be an administrator?"] In pretty much every job I have had, I have wound up unblocking the toilet. Perhaps best not to speculate on why this is, but the analogy is fairly impossible to miss. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • And believe me blocks and sanctions can be applied without any good reason because editors are not liked; the system as we have it now breeds false narratives and railroading. This is why I would extend fairness to everyone not just those we "like". (Littleolive oil (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC))
  • We've made it a blockable offense to be disliked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The last thing the world needs from anonymous editors is consensus. Ross McPherson, 19 October 2015 8:52 pm [from Wikipediocracy.com]
  • An obsession with boobies is fine when it's not reflected in an editor's (much less admin's) work on Wikipedia. General Ization Talk 00:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  • [from article Pantlessness] Many cartoon characters, like Donald Duck and Winnie-the-Pooh, wear shirts of some sort but no pants.
  • The majority of the non-boob redirects I can see as actually helpful to one degree or another. I think it's just the sheer number of boob redirects that is causing people to feel overwhelmed. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Imagine if The Atlantic got wind of this story, which actually has some meat on its bones. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I am a fan of great tits. --Lenticel (talk) 03:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  • [re WP:ANI] That cesspit is not a good place to have an intelligent conversation. Jehochman Talk 02:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • [typo corrected 21 minutes later with editsum "fix missing w, don't want to start a war accidently."] As far as using bitch as a noun, I would never call a woman that, or a stranger regardless of gender. Using the verb "bitching" is exceedingly common, hoever. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia drama is the worst and lamest kind. Reading it is a waste of life. Getting involved is worse as it draws others in which wastes everybody's life. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • In the real world, people who are elected to a position for life are known as tyrants. Viriditas (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Some editors are timesinks and net negatives without being blatantly disruptive, and there is no need to waste more time deciding exactly why they are being blocked. Johnuniq (talk) 21:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • [...] being fucked can certainly be gender-neutral. Drmies (talk) 23:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • [...] I fail to see what an editor's sexual orientation has to do with writing an encyclopedia. I'm more interested in reading a fellow editor's work than going to bed with them. Giano (talk) 08:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I believe there is such a thing as "too much information", this is a place for writing an encyclopedia not a place for coming out, going in or airing any other private information. Giano (talk) 08:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • [...] I view them [blocks] as simply another weapon in WP's arsenal of ritualised humiliation. Eric Corbett 19:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • There's a tendency in some parts of the project to react to people who are frustrated and venting by quoting wikipolicy at them, which doesn't generally make people more civil or less frustrated. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The larger the group, the more toxic, the more of your beauty as an individual you have to surrender for the sake of group thought. And when you suspend your individual beauty you also give up a lot of your humanity. You will do things in the name of a group that you would never do on your own. Injuring, hurting, killing, drinking are all part of it, because you've lost your identity, because you now owe your allegiance to this thing that's bigger than you are and that controls you. — George Carlin, Last Words. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. 2009. p. 284. ISBN 978-1-4391-7295-7.
  • My morality is not something that dictates my actions as an admin. I base my actions on the policies, guidelines, and expectations of the community. HighInBC 22:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The unanswered question is whether it's actually possible to build an encyclopedia using a wiki. I'd suggest that the evidence to date strongly suggests that it isn't. Eric Corbett 23:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Before I'm exiled from this house of horrors, [...]. Eric Corbett 23:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  • We are rapidly getting to a stage where editors will quietly disappear in the night, and no one will be allowed to question why. Giano 14:58, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
  • So it's no surprise to me, but then no one ever takes any notice of what I say until it's too late. Giano (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Rules? Here? Spare me. It's a mobocracy. Dan Murphy (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The problem here is governance and ideology. "Civility" is part of a game for kids. Dan Murphy (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Civility/NPA policies are effectively void on this project. There are several administrators who routinely and cavalierly ignore those policies. [...] administrators can insult people and be completely uncivil with abandon. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The civility/no personal attacks policies are absolutely empty, void of meaning for administrators here. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • [...] one should never volunteer to do work where you're not getting basic respect as a human being. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC
  • I don't generally view admonishments as meaningful, and have consistently held that opinion. User:Kevin Gorman | talk page 06:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
  • [in response to encouragement from User:MastCell to start contributing to WP again] Short of being paid and/or given meaningful editorial control over my contributions, I'd rather gouge my eye out with a fork. Dan Murphy (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • He [Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump] appeals, in the words of David Frum—a veteran of George W. Bush's White House—to "people who are irked when asked to press 1 for English." — Andrew Beatty, AFP, 22 January 2016
  • I would never want to be an admin. I wouldn't want to be judge in any dispute between people who dedicate hours and hours of time working for free in a system that guarantees misunderstanding, petty jealousies and dishonesty, where the dynamics are so complex it is hard to come to any conclusion but one – collective guilt. The system sucks despite the many good people working there. Ross McPherson, 23 January 2016 1:30 am [from Wikipediocracy.com]
  • Wikipedia is a highly confused organisation or perhaps misorganisation, generating unnecessary hostility among its members and not providing adequate means for conflict resolution. Ross McPherson, 03 January 2016 8:42 pm [from Wikipediocracy.com]
  • [re WP:Arbcom] What we have now is a pseudo-legal process in which the defendant has the right to remain silent or to be condemned for engaging in self-defense. Carrite (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • This is a difficult place to spend time on [...]. SarahSV (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia should scrap its bureaucracy and start over. [User:Anythingyouwant, user page, May 2014 to January 2015]
  • If you are interested in building an encyclopedia you pretty much just have to go ahead and do it. You need to be a saint. Wikipedia doesn't really support its content builders. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • In another wiki-life I was an arbitrator; it's an ugly process which breaks the sanity of everyone involved. Mackensen (talk) 01:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  • It's very dishonest to marginalize those we don't agree with by calling their views "disruptive". Doc talk 12:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  • We may be routinely disrespectful, but we must never be unjust. [User:Mandruss, user page, May 2016]
  • We've all seen sentences developed to the point that they are completely accurate, completely precise, and completely unreadable. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • McCoy: Stupid computer made a mistake in the meaurements—the right boot is too tight!
    Spock: There is a logical way to proceed, Doctor: You point your toe, apply equal pressure to either side of the boot, and push!
     — "Patterns of Force" (Star Trek: The Original Series), Star Trek TOS - Nazi Closet Luls on YouTube
  • Paul Krugman has the distinction of being wrong about most everything he says, and it's incredible—which makes him perfectly qualified for The New York Times. — Rush Limbaugh, 16 January 2017
  • It's not that we're even smart, we just ... are awake. — Alex Jones, 12 April 2017
  • Just kill me. Just kill me. Kill me. Just kill me. I [have to] go home. Kill me. Just kill me. Just kill me. Just kill me. — Dr. David Dao, 9 April 2017, after concussion, broken nose, damaged sinuses, two lost front teeth, dragged while unconscious
  • [...] when we approached one of these passengers to explain apologetically that he was being denied boarding, he raised his voice and refused to comply with crew member instructions. He was approached a few more times after that in order to gain his compliance to come off the aircraft, and each time he refused and became more and more disruptive and belligerent. [...] This account of Flight 3411 is purely from the perspective of the airline. — Oscar Munoz, CEO United Airlines, 10 Apr 2017
  • Her mind is shot – resign! — Donald Trump, 12 July 2016, in response to comment by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 83, "Now it's time for us to move to New Zealand"
  • Violet (Lily Tomlin): I'm a murderer.
    Judy (Jane Fonda): No you're not!
    Violet (Lily Tomlin): I'm a murder–ess.
     — 9 to 5, 1980
  • There is a left leaning bias on this project. Do you want to count how many people openly claim to be liberals versus how many people openly claim to be conservatives? Do you want me to show you how many people who identify their political leanings have been banned or topic banned recently from one particular side? Do you want me to show you archives from WP:RS where a certain sides sources are consistently deemed non-RS while blogs on the other side are defended? Do you want me to show you where blogs and opinion pieces are used for negative material in BLPs of one side while substantive sources are required and then debated to death on the other side? Because, I can do all of that. If you think it's disputable that this project leans one direction, I have a bridge to sell you.--v/r - TP 22:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Control the environment, control the medium, and you control its inhabitants. [...] Everybody in the mainstream media are there for one reason only: they are there to distort, and to give you a molified, dilute, and fractionalized worldview that is dictated by people who are frankly, without a doubt, the most evil folks you have ever met. — Lionel, "Lionel's Rules for Interpreting the Chaos That Is Our World" on YouTube, 14 May 2017
  • What have you ever done? What have you uncovered? What have you really done, Rachel? And you too, Wolf. Nothing! Because my people want to talk about this. We want to talk about a lot of stuff. We want to talk about Seth Rich. We want to talk about Hillary Clinton. We want to talk about her illnesses. You never even talk about her illness. This woman is suffering from absolute—obvious to anybody—serious neurological problems. She wore phenol lenses—she wore Zeiss 1B, blue photosynthetic lenses; she fell down, and you never said anything about it because you're bought and sold and you're a sellout. And they paid you off. They paid you off. You got what? A million? $2 million? $5 million? — Lionel, "The Utter and Complete Decline of Journalism and Rational Thought Amidst Political Mayhem" on YouTube, 11 June 2017
  • Your CNN viewer, your New York Times reader, is about going insane right now, because it's been eight months! And the promise has been there every day, and they want the news!—they want the data that Trump cheated! They want Trump frog-marched into jail, they want Hillary put in the White House, and every day that doesn't happen, the insane asylums need to start building new wings ... to house all the new recipients ... residents! — Rush Limbaugh, 21 June 2017 [1]
  • Right now, we share this one thing ... well we share a lot of other things, but—including low-grade communicable diseases—but aside from that. We share an appreciation, an unabashed bravery when it comes to the truth. — Lionel, "Fourth of July 2017: Faux Patriotism, Historical Ignorance and Unabashed Revisionism " on YouTube, 4 July 2017
  • Because let me say something, there's more to it than just sitting back and going through the usual stuff. Yeah yeah yeah – that's serious. But we've gotta remember something, remember this, and let me just say this, and we're gonna go: One day we're gonna be dead. This is not a dress rehearsal. None of this matters. ... There's Zigzag. Look! Look at this pathetic ... So sad! So sad! Emojis ... That's okay! No problem with that. Ahh ... — Lionel, "Carl Bernstein, Dingbat Mo Dowd and Party City Patriots: The MSM Can't Believe Trump's POTUS" on YouTube, 2 July 2017
  • In reality, the Wikipedia "community" is, by and large, a stubborn, anarchist mob interspersed with cliques. [User:Biblioworm, user page, July 2017]
  • When members of a civility-advocating editor retention project start calling you [assclown, dipshit], you know that Wikipedia has become a hopeless folly. [User:Biblioworm, user page, July 2017]
  • I've always thought that trees were somehow disapproving of me. — Dudley Moore, Crazy People, 1990
  • Only a typographic barbarian would use bold and italic together for emphasis [...] Quale 15:10, January 11, 2018‎ (editsum)
  • There have been far too many hapharard blocks, and it damages the social texture [...]. Tony (talk) 07:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm standing up for the rights of all non-admin editors here. We should not work under the boot of a gun-happy cavalry that shoots at random. Tony (talk) 05:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "In the short time between when Ms. Damond approached the squad car and the time that he fired the fatal shot, there is no evidence that Officer Noor encountered a threat, appreciated a threat, investigated a threat, or confirmed a threat that justified the decision to use deadly force," Freeman told reporters, noting Noor "recklessly and intentionally fired his gun." — Chris Harris, People, "Minn. Officer Who Fatally Shot Bride-to-Be Who Called 911 to Report Possible Assault Charged With Murder", 20 March 2018
  • There's never a shortage of administrators ready to charge in and open fire, yet when it comes to cleaning up the mess everyone's suddenly always walking on eggshells. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  • [...] most current admins have little experience with what it takes to contribute non-trivial content to Wikipedia. It is entirely inappropriate that they should be given the right to jerk around and block the users who do that work. Instead, a special board, elected by competent content contributors, should take over the disciplining and sanctioning of the actual content contributors. [...] It is a TOTAL waste of time pursuing reform. It cannot happen. Long-term content contributors just need to try and avoid admin boards, and when they cannot, they need to roll over and let the admins have their way. There is no way, long-term, to be a serious contributor on Wikipedia and at the same time retain a degree of dignity (unless you also become an admin). Contributors who think otherwise are either deluded or haven't been here long enough to see how it works. – Epipelagic (talk) 02:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm against any hiding or removal of blocks in anyone's block log, as I think that would give blocks a moral legitimacy I simply don't think they have. Montanabw makes a legalistic comparison, but you simply can't compare a conviction for shoplifting to a sanction applied unilaterally by one individual for calling someone a sycophant on a web site, for instance. So leave the block logs as they are, and let whoever is interested see the self-righteous lunacy that underpins Wikipedia. Eric Corbett 18:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  • All one has to do is scroll down the long, meandering Trump articles to see how inundated they are with detailed critical opinions and unsupported allegations by his detractors. Few, if any other views from either the same cited sources or any right leaning sources were included (or allowed) in the articles. I don't think NPOV was applied properly in the selection of sources or when choosing the content. [...] One can really see the problems after comparing articles of the last 4+ presidents who served 2 terms...and now heeeeres Godwin...even Hitler got more of a break than what Trump's getting, and it's only his 1st year in office. Atsme📞📧 02:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I cannot stand Wikipedia. I can't stand it! What they allow to be put on their site about me – the cherry-picking by the Left or their editors, or their administrators – that they put up there, creates a totally false image and perception of me, and they do it purposely. — Mark Levin, Mark Levin Show PODCAST – March 29, 2018
  • None of what we're discussing tonight, will be on Wikipedia ... which is a thoroughly discredited propaganda operation of the Left. So do not use it. No serious researcher should use it. And if you should use it, make sure you check the footnotes. But do understand, it is thoroughly discredited as far as I'm concerned. — Mark Levin, Mark Levin Show PODCAST – June 01, 2018
  • You can never rely on Wikipedia. It is a junk site run by nincompoops who clearly have a left-wing agenda. — Mark Levin, Mark Levin Show PODCAST – July 12, 2018
  • If you didn't know Mark Levin, and you read much of what's in Wikipedia, you wouldn't know me! It is a sleazy smear-operation. [...] Do not use Wikipedia as a research site, and do not allow your children to use it, because this is what it is – it's a load of you-know-what. [...] The media in this country are not popular, but there is a propaganda machine. Wikipedia is one of the propaganda machines. — Mark Levin, Mark Levin Show PODCAST – July 8, 2019
  • The Left is —as we speak—editing the Jeffrey Epstein Wikipedia page and removing the names of all Democrats. Oh yes they are! I know it's sleazy, I know it's dirty, but that's exactly what they've been doing. — Rush Limbaugh, The Rush Limbaugh Show PODCAST – July 9, 2019
  • If one summarizes for conciseness, their argument is criticized as flawed and uncompelling, the necessary gaps in it located and exploited to advantage. If they take the time to craft the more complete argument, the same people will often dismiss it as tl;dr. Such practice is bad-faith and unethical—either way it goes, you score a debate point in the minds of many readers. As such, it is counter to the project's goals and interests. [User:Mandruss, user page]
  • [from article Ingo Swann] In his 1998 autobiography Penetration: The Question of Extraterrestrial and Human Telepathy, Swann described his work with individuals in an unknown agency who study extraterrestrials (E.T.), his remote viewing of a secret E.T. base on the hidden side of the Moon and his "shocking" experience with a sexy scantily dressed female E.T. in a Los Angeles supermarket.
  • [last post of User:Dreadstar, RIP, admin since 5 May 2009] Feel free to initiate desysop of me, I have found this place to be disgusting and disreputable. Dreadstar ☥ 16:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I know how this works. I've seen it a million times before. Anything further I say will be used to illustrate how I don't get it or I'm not listening or I'm bad for Wikipedia. It doesn't matter if I apologize. [...] It just doesn't matter. No one ever changes their minds on AN or ANI except to be more harsh. You're with the clique until you're cast out. It's like highschool all over again, some of the worst years of my life. --Tarage (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Does it bother anyone else that in trying to solve a general drive-by pile-on Votes for Banning problem, we've quickly jumped to an up-and-down vote for banning? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Like I said, this is like highschool. I have enough wrong with my life. --Tarage (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree that the process as currently in force reinforces editor cynicism and apathy. But that's the way the cookie crumbles around here. Coretheapple (talk) 12:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The reason I stopped contributing to this project was because I no longer have any faith in it, and I see little to be gained by attempting to contribute while simultaneously being subjected to various levels of abuse. Eric Corbett 09:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia noticeboards don't really work. They've never helped me resolve any content disputes. [User:Colipon, user page]
  • WP:Civil POV pushing is Wikipedia's greatest danger and it is one reason that I am reluctant to join "let's be nice" campaigns because they seldom acknowledge that outbursts are usually for a reason, and a sanction against the person who loses their cool might simply reward POV pushers. Johnuniq (talk) 05:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • [editsum by User:MaxBrowne2 on this edit, 01:24, July 18, 2019] well duh....
  • There is no real process for throwing out a bad admin, which, given the lifetime appointment, is a major problem. It's even more acute due to the low numbers of admin who have any idea about what goes into creating content. GregJackP Boomer! 18:07, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Sanctions enacted in the "Community's" name should never come from proposals and !votes from the ANI non-admin regulars. They are usually way over the top of what is necessary. Most of the editors who would have valuable input or advice stay far away from ANI. MrErnie, Tue Jan 02, 2018 6:52 pm [from Wikipediocracy.com]
  • Beer is good. I mean, we've been making it for 13,000 years; if it wasn't good, we'd have changed tack by now. I think it's one of society's crowning achievements. [User:Girth Summit, user page]
  • Folks, we are surrounded by so much ignorance and stupidity every day, that you have to work hard making sure that it does not infect you. — Rush Limbaugh, The Rush Limbaugh Show PODCAST – August 20, 2019
  • Every day. Every day! We can't be normal!—You can't wake up and you can't go through the day and have a normal day without being bombarded with insanity. And lunacy! — Rush Limbaugh, The Rush Limbaugh Show PODCAST – August 21, 2019
  • I've always said the Clintons are like "cold-blooded animals"—they don't have internally generated "body warmth"—they need the "sun" to give them the warmth; and they need the affection and the adoration of the crowds to function, to "metabolize", to exist as people. And now they're denied that, and it's a very cruel punishment which they quite deserve. — Dick Morris, "Where's Bill? – Lunch Alert!" – August 26, 2019
  • Any appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, you are not considered to be castled or to have castled unless you yourself have actually castled, i.e. performed the castling maneuver. In other words: If you haven't castled, you haven't castled. — Svetozar Gligorić, Shall We Play Fischerandom Chess? (2002), p. 90
  • They've [the globalists] just decided to wipe everybody out, and, you know – I don't agree with them, because I know they're a bunch of evil people, they're worse than the general public – but the general public are a bunch of self-absorbed, stupid, lazy, empty, non-giving sociopaths, and you are conjuring your own destruction, so, it's gonna be bad one way or the other, and I just don't want to be negative here, but lying to you would be even more negative, so just get ready. — Alex Jones, The Alex Jones Show, 23 Sept 2020
  • Wikipedia used to be pretty fair, but was also taken over by activists from the Left who have made the site into a giant false narrative machine. — Hans Mahncke, The Epoch Times, Dec 2022
  • We're dealing with people that are not democratic liberals in the way that we used to define them as Bill Clinton, or Harry Truman, or JFK. This is a new generation of Jacobins, and they believe that any means necessary are justified morally to achieve their morally superior aims. — Victor Davis Hanson, Twitter, 2 Oct 2023
  • Evil isn't the only power in the Universe. There is Good as well. — Alex Jones, The Alex Jones Show, 27 June 2024
  • I'm not supposed to be here, I'm supposed to be dead. I'm supposed to be dead. — Donald Trump, New York Post interview, 14 July 2024
  • Wow, steak & eggs with coffee in the morning really feels like a powerup! — Elon Musk, X, 17 July 2024
  • Trump or doom. This is the fork in the road of destiny. — Elon Musk, X, 26 September 2024
  • The media are shameless – shameless to a degree never witnessed before in human history. But, we already knew that. — Matt Walsh, podcast Ep. 1456, 3 October 2024