Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:08, 2 September 2007

This page is intended as humor. It is not, has never been, nor will ever be, a Misplaced Pages policy or guideline. Rather, it illustrates standards or conduct that are generally not accepted by the Misplaced Pages community.

Shortcut ]

This page in a nutshell:

Assume that others do not intend to follow the policies and guidelines of WP participation, unless there is clear and present evidence that they do.

Here are a few things that, if you ever find yourself thinking them, are probably signs that you should take some time off away from edit wars, or at the very least, a nice cup of tea and a sit down. It may also help to remember the maxim "Just Because You’re Paranoid Doesn’t Mean They Aren’t Out to Get You".

1. "That editor is a..."
   • "sockpuppet"
   • "meatpuppet"
   • "zealot"
   • "cliquish POV pusher"
   • "troll"
   • "power-drunk admin"
   • "stalker"
2. "This editor edits in a way that I don't like. He must DIE."
3. "This is the work of the Cabal!"
4. "That editor is gay!"
5. "This is all to promote the ________ agenda!"
6. "The other guy is only doing this because he hates me."
7. "If I compromise, they'll know it's a sign of weakness."
8. "I can do whatever I want, even if policy goes against me."
9. "I have my own Prime Directive: Misplaced Pages:Ignore All Rules"
10. "Everybody is wrong, crazy, retarded or all of the above. Except me."
11. "If all else fails, I'll complain to Jimbo. That'll shut them up."
12. "Policy was misused against me, and even if it wasn't, the policy sucks."
13. "Don't you people have anything better to do than to keep asking for sources?"
14. "That policy page is wrong, because it doesn't describe what I do. I'll fix it."
15. "While I'm at it I'll alter another policy that I'll cite as precedent."
16. "Policies are only guidelines! Unless they support my position, in which case they are, of course, set in stone."
17. "Filling a user's talk page with the word 'fuck' 800 times will persuade him to my point of view."
18. "An article formerly here was deleted, so this new article must be a re-creation of deleted content!"
19. "That editor knows NOTHING about what he's writing about, what business does he have with this article?"
20. "That so-called 'fact' presented is just the author's POV. After all, truth is a whole, and on the whole, only I have the truth."
21. "That guy who's supporting my opponent is either a puppet or a friend called in to help. After all, could more than one person oppose my natural good sense?"
22. "If all of Misplaced Pages doesn't shape up and remove everything that doesn't reflect the truth as I know it, and change all of its policies and structures to ensure that none of the stuff I don't like ever makes it back again, it's certain to get sued and/or prosecuted for libel, slander, defamation, product tampering, DUI, global warming, treason, blasphemy, buggery, defenestration, and/or genocide. And, no, this is not a legal threat."
23. "That's not the consensus version, only my version can be the consensus version. I know, I'll revert!"
24. "If I change this . to a , in WP:OMGTMDTLA, section 2.3 2nd paragraph line 12, policy will cover my ass!"
25. "OH! I'm at 2 reverts, he's at 3, so 1 more revert, and he goes over!"
26. "I don't care if NPOV is a policy, that admin is just bullying me!"
27. "That's retarded fascism."
28. "If two editors revert my edits they must be violating WP:OWN. Never mind that I refuse to counter their references or respond to them on the talk page."
29. "If three editors revert my edits it's not consensus. It's a cabal."
30. "If an administrator joins them it's an abuse of power."
31. "Anyone who edits my words is committing censorship."
32. "Yes, I'm an irrational troll. And yes, any third-grader chosen at random could see that my edits are made with a desperate need to control my surroundings and browbeat all opponents into submission. BUT YOU CAN'T DRAW THAT CONCLUSION! YOU HAVE TO ASSUME GOOD FAITH, OR YOU'RE AN EVIL MONSTER!"
33. "That was a false consensus! I couldn't participate because I was blocked for reverting and disruption."
34. "I can still accuse you of original research if I don't read your citations."
35. "Prove it." (As soon as you do I'll raise the bar a little higher).
36. "Well, yeah, I make up my references. Don't you do that too?"
37. "How dare you accuse me of quoting from memory! Just because I keep misspelling the author's name and can't give a page number..."
38. "Instead of driving to the library and looking up that page number, let's just quarrel for weeks."
39. "Terible symtax and spelling you hav. For you I fizxed the whol articlee."
40. "If a featured article has 70 footnotes to 26 different sources and I disagree with one footnote (but don't have any citation of my own to refute it with), then the integrity of the article is compromised by too much reliance on a single source."
41. "This guy moved pages quickly, therefore he must be a vandalbot!"
42. "I can disguise my own history of blocks and warnings if I just keep accusing the other editor of breaking policy."
43. "This 'copyediting' idea is wonderful: those other editors don't know what a gerund is. Now I can write things my way."
44. "I categorically reject your analysis of my advertising DVD's in Misplaced Pages articles as false and itself biased! Wait till my "organization" gets a hold of you...."
45. "I don't like where you moved this page, so you were doing it to provoke an edit war."
46. "This experience has severely tainted the image of Misplaced Pages and unless justice is served I doubt I will ever use Misplaced Pages again."
47. "This is just another case of an abuse of privilege. You feel that since you have power over someone who disagrees with your policy that you are entitled to discard rationale and impose your will. By chance, are you a communist or related to Fidel Castro?"
48. "It isn't original research if I vanity publish and then cite myself anonymously."
49. "How many people really fact check a citation? I'll make up some footnotes for my beliefs."
50. "I'll find an obscure publication using google books, then cite that for my own POV"
51. "I don't like that quoted passage - I'll rewrite the quote!"
52. "Somebody already put a footnote at the end of this paragraph. Sweet! I can write anything I want here and it will look referenced."
53. "My opinion becomes encyclopedic if I keep repeating it on the talk page."
54. "If someone asks me to assume good faith twice, then the appropriate response is to insist that I obviously can't communicate them because they keep throwing policy at me. It is also appropriate to call the request a defense mechanism."
55. "If I don't like a well-referenced article I'll nominate it for deletion and call it fundamentally unencyclopedic. If the consensus decides to keep I'll slap the article with a POV flag. If an editor requests an explanation for the POV flag I'll explain nothing for two weeks, but revert instantly if they remove the flag."
56. "This editor made a few dozen edits to one article in one day right before he submitted the page for a good article nomination, but I'm in a dispute with him. I'll cite that number of edits as evidence of trollish behavior."
57. "Misplaced Pages should accept my claims without reliable sources because my local library is too small to cover the subject. If someone suggests I try interlibrary loan or concede the point, then they're violating WP:CIVIL by calling me lazy."
58. "Misplaced Pages should accept my claims without reliable sources because the universe is too small to cover the subject. If someone suggests sticking to topics where there is some trace of existent reference materials, then they're violating WP:CIVIL by calling my work original research."
59. "Lots of people think my article should be deleted. I'll post sockpuppet tags on all their talk pages and then go nominate articles they've created for deletion."
60. "Anyone who wants to contribute positively would have registered an account; therefore, all edits by anonymous IPs should be reverted."
61. (If an admin)"My foes need a lesson in humility. Their user pages shall be replaced with long strings of insults, then locked."
62. "Yo mamma"
63. "I know! I'll do the most trollish, evil, and/or assholish thing I can, because it'll be funny!"
64. (If an admin)"I feel ok permblocking somebody because they won't personally work with me even though there's a whole section of the site devoted to this issue"
65. "Only partisans of attack sites would have that opinion!"
66. "Somebody with similar opinions to yours was a troll that got banned. Therefore, you're a troll too!"
67. "You apparently live in the same arm of the Milky Way galaxy as a notorious banned troll, so you're probably one of his meatpuppets."
68. "I see what you're doing there. By changing one letter in my article, you have hereby performed something tantamount to slander of my good name, and therefore, you should be distrusted, nullified, and, from here on out, sacrificed to the Total Perspective Vortex. I might recommend a cup of tea, mate."
69. "You must have intentionally made that little innuendo."
70. "Well... I did all of my research, spent eighteen hours compiling these notes, cross-referenced at entries at least 9 levels deep, and found that... THEY DELETED MY F@%&ING POST! And it was perfectly correct, too. THOSE HACKERS, I'm going to report this to Jimbo!"

Notes

1. Nobody actually goes to the library to research Misplaced Pages articles anyway.
2. This is NOT an everyday circumstance; Please do not wield your keyboards, and delete away the life of the internet.

See also

• m:How to win an argument
• m:Assume bad faith
• m:The Wrong Version
• Misplaced Pages:The Last Word
• Misplaced Pages:Assume good wraith

• Misplaced Pages humor