ANI regulars

[Mojito]

In case anyone's interested, I had a poke around amongst the recent top contributors at AN/I (based on those who had more than 300 edits amongst the latest 50,000 edits by all contributors). I don't hang out AN/I enough to know who the problem children are, so this isn't meant to imply that anyone is a bad editor.

But I thought it would be interesting to see who's the most prolific over there and what else they've been working on recently, so here goes:

1. Hey man im josh (T-C-L): admin, joined 2020. A very prolific editor. Lots of American sports, music and category deletion.
2. Snow Rise (T-C-L): non-admin, joined 2011. Often at RfC, village pump and controversial topical issues.
3. Ravenswing (T-C-L): non-admin, joined 2005. Edits various topics and ice hockey.
4. EEng (T-C-L): non-admin, joined 2008. Edits various topics, including various controversial ones.
5. Cullen328 (T-C-L): admin, joined 2009. Frequently works at the teahouse and helpdesk.
6. Black Kite (T-C-L): admin, joined 2006. Often edits news-related topics, but also random smattering. A wonderful person (and WPO regular), of course
7. Lourdes (T-C-L): ex-admin, joined 2015. This one's a can of worms...
8. Bbb23 (T-C-L): admin, joined 2008. Very prolific. Sockpuppets and various other topics.
9. HistoryofIran (T-C-L): non-admin, joined 2013. Sockpuppetry and articles about Central Asia.
10. LilianaUwU (T-C-L): non-admin, joined 2022. Edits articles about various topics.
11. Beyond My Ken (T-C-L): non-admin, joined 2009. Mostly mainspace articles, particularly films.
12. El C (T-C-L): admin, joined 2004. Lots of page protection work.
13. Nil Einne (T-C-L): non-admin, joined 2005. Lots of work at BLP + Reliable Sources noticeboards.

[Starship Enterprise]

1. Hey man im josh (T-C-L): 46.7% main space
2. Snow Rise (T-C-L): 24.3% main space
3. Ravenswing (T-C-L): 52.8% main space
4. EEng (T-C-L): 32.5% main space
5. Cullen328 (T-C-L): 27.8% main space
6. Black Kite (T-C-L): 28.8% main space
7. Lourdes (T-C-L): 35.6% main space
8. Bbb23 (T-C-L): 37.9% main space
9. HistoryofIran (T-C-L): 67.9% main space
10. LilianaUwU (T-C-L): 52.5% main space
11. Beyond My Ken (T-C-L): 68% main space
12. El C (T-C-L): 61.1% main space
13. Nil Einne (T-C-L): 7.5% main space

[Mojito]

% main space stats

Thanks, that's a useful addition.

Hmm, only 5 of 13 are above 50%

[FelinaLavandula]

I am a regular reader of ANI so none of these names are new to me, but I’m not going to do a deep dive because who cares.
This, however,

5 of 13 are above 50%

literally surprises me. I wouldn’t guess that any of the top 25 editors at ANI had more than 50% mainspace edits.

[utbc]

Admins is MEH. You'd have to make a better case showing they're not just doing their jobs.

Nil and Ken are well-established, well-known regulars. Nil is reasonable almost all of the time. I have not seen them get scolded for any specific incident, but theirs is the first name to find mention when people talk about the peanut gallery or whatever they call people who hang out in drama doing almost no content work. Ken finds more controversy but he does so much total editing that he argues his dramaboard participation is still a very reasonable percent, on the low end even; premise is true, conclusion is sus.

Others I had not noticed as being one thing or the other.

[Black Kite]

% main space stats

Thanks, that's a useful addition.

Hmm, only 5 of 13 are above 50%

Not unusual for long-term admins that do a lot of moppy stuff, especially blocking. You end up leaving a lot of notices on talk and usertalk pages. Monitoring contentious pages that have a lot of edit requests also means a lot of talk page stuff.

I also don't have a lot of time to write articles these days; looking at it, I only wrote two in 2023 and I really need to go back to one of those and add some reception information (it was a music album). If I do get involved with an article, it's often fixing someone up for Recent Deaths whose article is terrible.

[Cheryl]

I don't recall HistoryOfIran engaging at ANI in other people's threads, but (impression formed by reading ANI regularly like it was Soap Opera Digest) he opens more threads than anyone else.

[rnu]

I don't recall HistoryOfIran engaging at ANI in other people's threads, but (impression formed by reading ANI regularly like it was Soap Opera Digest) he opens more threads than anyone else.

HistoryOfIran is also reported regularly for alleged edit warring or POV pushing. Usually with the result that the filer gets indeffed as NOTHERE.

[The Blue Newt]

I don't recall HistoryOfIran engaging at ANI in other people's threads, but (impression formed by reading ANI regularly like it was Soap Opera Digest) he opens more threads than anyone else.

HistoryOfIran is also reported regularly for alleged edit warring or POV pushing. Usually with the result that the filer gets indeffed as NOTHERE.

Usually rightly or usually wrongly?

[rnu]

I don't recall HistoryOfIran engaging at ANI in other people's threads, but (impression formed by reading ANI regularly like it was Soap Opera Digest) he opens more threads than anyone else.

HistoryOfIran is also reported regularly for alleged edit warring or POV pushing. Usually with the result that the filer gets indeffed as NOTHERE.

Usually rightly or usually wrongly?

No idea. I never looked at his editing. I just noticed that he is reported (and reports) a lot and usually ends up "winning".

[Hemiauchenia]

I don't recall HistoryOfIran engaging at ANI in other people's threads, but (impression formed by reading ANI regularly like it was Soap Opera Digest) he opens more threads than anyone else.

HistoryOfIran is also reported regularly for alleged edit warring or POV pushing. Usually with the result that the filer gets indeffed as NOTHERE.

Usually rightly or usually wrongly?

The topic area that HOI regularly edits (Middle East/Central Asian history) is full of nationalist POV pushers/sockmasters, so the blocks are usually correct and remove problematic editors.

[Black Kite]

I don't recall HistoryOfIran engaging at ANI in other people's threads, but (impression formed by reading ANI regularly like it was Soap Opera Digest) he opens more threads than anyone else.

HistoryOfIran is also reported regularly for alleged edit warring or POV pushing. Usually with the result that the filer gets indeffed as NOTHERE.

Usually correctly. I've just partial-blocked another one at ANI. HoI is one of the few editors in that arena who would like the articles to resemble something close to reality. And there's a *lot* of socks of banned editors around there as well.

[Mojito]

(impression formed by reading ANI regularly like it was Soap Opera Digest)

I'd be interested to hear who you think is responsible for the failings of that joint. Any regular culprits or is it just fly-by-nighters?

[Elinruby]

In case anyone's interested, I had a poke around amongst the recent top contributors at AN/I (based on those who had more than 300 edits amongst the latest 50,000 edits by all contributors). I don't hang out AN/I enough to know who the problem children are, so this isn't meant to imply that anyone is a bad editor.

But I thought it would be interesting to see who's the most prolific over there and what else they've been working on recently, so here goes:

1. Hey man im josh (T-C-L): admin, joined 2020. A very prolific editor. Lots of American sports, music and category deletion.
2. Snow Rise (T-C-L): non-admin, joined 2011. Often at RfC, village pump and controversial topical issues.
3. Ravenswing (T-C-L): non-admin, joined 2005. Edits various topics and ice hockey.
4. EEng (T-C-L): non-admin, joined 2008. Edits various topics, including various controversial ones.
5. Cullen328 (T-C-L): admin, joined 2009. Frequently works at the teahouse and helpdesk.
6. Black Kite (T-C-L): admin, joined 2006. Often edits news-related topics, but also random smattering. A wonderful person (and WPO regular), of course
7. Lourdes (T-C-L): ex-admin, joined 2015. This one's a can of worms...
8. Bbb23 (T-C-L): admin, joined 2008. Very prolific. Sockpuppets and various other topics.
9. HistoryofIran (T-C-L): non-admin, joined 2013. Sockpuppetry and articles about Central Asia.
10. LilianaUwU (T-C-L): non-admin, joined 2022. Edits articles about various topics.
11. Beyond My Ken (T-C-L): non-admin, joined 2009. Mostly mainspace articles, particularly films.
12. El C (T-C-L): admin, joined 2004. Lots of page protection work.
13. Nil Einne (T-C-L): non-admin, joined 2005. Lots of work at BLP + Reliable Sources noticeboards.

I thought Ravenswing was an admin based on their behaviour at ANI. No wonder they didn't think it was important that the one case was a contentious topic--they didn't see the point, I guess

[Cheryl]

(impression formed by reading ANI regularly like it was Soap Opera Digest)

I'd be interested to hear who you think is responsible for the failings of that joint. Any regular culprits or is it just fly-by-nighters?

I'm not sure what you mean by failings? I mean, it's a drama board...it is what it is. When I had downtime at work, I'd sit and read through ANI's archives for hours, following all the links. Good way to absorb the perceived norms of the community (or at least learn where the hidden mines are) and discover lots of juicy history.

The lengthy threads that can turn into pile-ons are probably the most frustrating and least successful, a lot of people walk away from those unhappy with whatever the resolution was. But I think even those still serve a necessary communal purpose, despite their messiness.

[rnu]

[...]
The lengthy threads that can turn into pile-ons are probably the most frustrating and least successful, a lot of people walk away from those unhappy with whatever the resolution was. But I think even those still serve a necessary communal purpose, despite their messiness.

They tend to clarify who the rules apply to and who is exempt.

[greyed.out.fields]

There would also appear to me something else of note here: relatively new editors who regularly post at teh Dramah Board, then get a slippering on their talk pages. OK, here's the last 1,000 posts to WP:AN/I: link

I'll donate AU$ 100 to the charity of your choice if you can identify the non-admin who has recently posted more than 30 times to WP:AN/I. With this caveat: only if they have got a slippering on their talk page.

[C&B]

link

the non-admin who has recently posted more than 30 times to WP:AN/I. With this caveat: only if they have got a slippering on their talk page.

Chaotic Enby (T-C-L) has posted there over 100 times since 1 Jan. And has been bollocked on their talk by Girth Summit. In so far as GS bollocks anyone, of course.

[The Garbage Scow]

link

the non-admin who has recently posted more than 30 times to WP:AN/I. With this caveat: only if they have got a slippering on their talk page.

Chaotic Enby (T-C-L) has posted there over 100 times since 1 Jan. And has been bollocked on their talk by Girth Summit. In so far as GS bollocks anyone, of course.

That advice from GS is some of the best I've ever seen on Wikipedia.

[C&B]

It's a shame it was wasted, though. Still, CE did manage to last four days before diving back in.

[Ron Lybonly]

link

the non-admin who has recently posted more than 30 times to WP:AN/I. With this caveat: only if they have got a slippering on their talk page.

Chaotic Enby (T-C-L) has posted there over 100 times since 1 Jan. And has been bollocked on their talk by Girth Summit. In so far as GS bollocks anyone, of course.

That advice from GS is some of the best I've ever seen on Wikipedia.

I've noticed Chaotic Enby (T-C-L) in several ANI threads where he's called out admins and unblockables for incivility.

There's currently a thread about Chris troutman (T-C-L)'s comments to a new editor. Chaotic Enby criticized troutman, incurring the ire of Drmies (T-C-L) and especially Lepricavark (T-C-L) who thrashed Chaotic Enby over Chaotic Enby's "civility campaign". link

[yasslay]

-snip-

if you can identify the non-admin who has recently posted more than 30 times to WP:AN/I. With this caveat: only if they have got a slippering on their talk page.

(long-term stalker)

Babysharkboss2 (T-C-L) has posted at ANI a lot over the past few months and received a bollocking from Tamzin in November (diff) and Seawolf35 a couple of weeks ago (diff). Unlike Chaotic Enby, Mr Boss’ comments offered little more than unnecessary pieces of commentary on the editors involved and often simply repeated what had been already stated by other editors.

[rnu]

-snip-

if you can identify the non-admin who has recently posted more than 30 times to WP:AN/I. With this caveat: only if they have got a slippering on their talk page.

(long-term stalker)

Babysharkboss2 (T-C-L) has posted at ANI a lot over the past few months and received a bollocking from Tamzin in November (diff) and Seawolf35 a couple of weeks ago (diff). Unlike Chaotic Enby, Mr Boss’ comments offered little more than unnecessary pieces of commentary on the editors involved and often simply repeated what had been already stated by other editors.

[yasslay]

Thank you!

[The Garbage Scow]

I've noticed Chaotic Enby (T-C-L) in several ANI threads where he's called out admins and unblockables for incivility.

There's currently a thread about Chris troutman (T-C-L)'s comments to a new editor. Chaotic Enby criticized troutman, incurring the ire of Drmies (T-C-L) and especially Lepricavark (T-C-L) who thrashed Chaotic Enby over Chaotic Enby's "civility campaign". link

Everyone knows civility is only for the good ol boy club to weaponize against their opponents and it's usually optional for admins. CE won't win this one.

[pottedmeat]

And this un-accomplished Wikipedian with less than three hundred edits complains that they've been bitten? Ludricrous.

You may think that your civility campaign is righteous, but eventually... the community will run out of patience and force you stop.

"Me and the e-gang/cabal don't have to be civil, especially to noobs. Now we's gonna e-beat youse into submission until you learns your place."

...if we got rid of everyone who was rude from time to time, we wouldn't have enough people left to maintain our content. I realize this message will likely fall on deaf ears, but at least now you won't be able to say you weren't warned.

"Here's another excuse for me to ignore civility. I must protect the encyclopedia from this grave threat at all costs."

I looked at the stuff that Tracysear posted on Chris's talk page, and I would find it very, very difficult to keep my cool after trying to read that in good faith.

"I too can choose to ignore AGF and CIVIL at my sole discretion, admin expectations and (mis)conduct be damned."

Don't exaggerate, please.

"I'm Drmies, and I endorse the troutman and his incivility."

This isn't an RfA. Using someone's admin status against them like that is a weak move. Are you prepared to take up Chris troutman's work once you've run him off the site for occasional impoliteness?

"Admins only have to be on their bestest behaviour during RfA season. After that, it's IAR, all the time, but only for admins, and you aren't allowed to call them out on that. Don't forget that us entrenched editors are irreplaceable, unlike yourself, maggot."

Also, I'm aware that nobody has proposed sanctions yet, but I've seen enough of these threads to know which the wind is blowing.

"I'm still at the 10-yard line, but you're as good as gone so I'm gonna do my victory dance now."

Whatever, ChatGPTZero was 98% certain that the text I fed it was AI generated.

"Whatever, I do what I want. Respect my authoritah."

----------

Am I doing this right?

I edited for ~5 years under a static IP. Not a lot of edits (1700-odd) for that sort of duration, but I only edited at work during times when I would otherwise alternate between staring at a progress bar and the wall.

Before I started editing I gnomed and read the drama boards for their entertainment value, and in doing so picked up most of the common policies and things that trip up new editors. Once I got board-bored I shifted to improving articles in my area of interest, focusing on neglected articles and doing minor sentence rewrites, expanding sections, adding references - nothing major. Apparently the fact that I was an IP-editing untermensch whose edits were actually coherent, properly cited using sources that were WP:RS and :V, and had edit summaries was cause for great suspicion. I never was outright accused of being a sock, but every now and then I'd have someone get snippy and question my previous edit. A few times I'd revert an obvious vandal and get reverted and uw-vandalism'd, with no response when I questioned it and cited WP:BP (just to indicate I was aware of it). Fine, be accusatory and bitey, I can AGF like the civil editor I'm supposed to be and take the high road. It just wears you down just a little each time it happens.

I quit after a longtime editor decided I was a vandal after noticing I messed up some table formatting and reverted me. I always preview my edits before submitting, so I'm not sure what happened; regardless, I screwed up and didn't notice, I'll admit that much. I ignored the fact they rolled back all of my edits on that page, even though all except the last were accurate and correctly sourced/cited. Then they started going through my edit history and critiquing them in a manner that I don't believe any other reasonable person would (e.g. I reverted an edit that added excess detail, noted it as such in the edit summary, and they told me "sources aren't excess detail."). I AGF'd a few times and explained my edits but wrote them off once they replied with "OK? I didn't revert you."

I figured if an editor of well over a decade with a large edit count can be that obtuse, fail to AGF, and insist I'm a vandal, even though a cursory glance at previous messages indicating skepticism and my edit history would dispel that notion, then their behaviour must be de facto sanctioned by the community-at-large and/or the rules governing the project don't work due to their subjectiveness and uneven enforcement. I have no interest in being a part of a community that reminds me of middle- and high-school cliques. Sorry for bitching, I'm sure everyone here knows this stuff

[Starship Enterprise]

I figured if an editor of well over a decade with a large edit count can be that obtuse, fail to AGF, and insist I'm a vandal, even though a cursory glance at previous messages indicating skepticism and my edit history would dispel that notion, then their behaviour must be de facto sanctioned by the community-at-large and/or the rules governing the project don't work due to their subjectiveness and uneven enforcement. I have no interest in being a part of a community that reminds me of middle- and high-school cliques. Sorry for bitching, I'm sure everyone here knows this stuff

but Mellowed Fillmore, Arena Football Rooter, AutomaticStrikeout, Northern Antarctica, and Lepricavark think incivility doesn't chase people away, it's the users that care about civility that chase people away

Lepricavark thinks you're not a real person

maybe Lepricavark doesn't have much going on upstairs

[SerkaVerduchka]

Snow Rise (editor number two on the original post) has delivered an excoriating takedown in that thread. Nail on head.

[rnu]

[...]
but Mellowed Fillmore, Arena Football Rooter, AutomaticStrikeout, Northern Antarctica, and Lepricavark think incivility doesn't chase people away, it's the users that care about civility that chase people away
[...]

I think not believing that incivility chases people away is what differentiates psychopaths from sociopaths who realize it but don't care.

[Starship Enterprise]

when you are on the team that speaks out against civility:

[rnu]

And this un-accomplished Wikipedian with less than three hundred edits complains that they've been bitten? Ludricrous.

You may think that your civility campaign is righteous, but eventually... the community will run out of patience and force you stop.

"Me and the e-gang/cabal don't have to be civil, especially to noobs. Now we's gonna e-beat youse into submission until you learns your place."

...if we got rid of everyone who was rude from time to time, we wouldn't have enough people left to maintain our content. I realize this message will likely fall on deaf ears, but at least now you won't be able to say you weren't warned.

"Here's another excuse for me to ignore civility. I must protect the encyclopedia from this grave threat at all costs."

I looked at the stuff that Tracysear posted on Chris's talk page, and I would find it very, very difficult to keep my cool after trying to read that in good faith.

"I too can choose to ignore AGF and CIVIL at my sole discretion, admin expectations and (mis)conduct be damned."

Don't exaggerate, please.

"I'm Drmies, and I endorse the troutman and his incivility."

This isn't an RfA. Using someone's admin status against them like that is a weak move. Are you prepared to take up Chris troutman's work once you've run him off the site for occasional impoliteness?

"Admins only have to be on their bestest behaviour during RfA season. After that, it's IAR, all the time, but only for admins, and you aren't allowed to call them out on that. Don't forget that us entrenched editors are irreplaceable, unlike yourself, maggot."

Also, I'm aware that nobody has proposed sanctions yet, but I've seen enough of these threads to know which the wind is blowing.

"I'm still at the 10-yard line, but you're as good as gone so I'm gonna do my victory dance now."

Whatever, ChatGPTZero was 98% certain that the text I fed it was AI generated.

"Whatever, I do what I want. Respect my authoritah."

----------

Am I doing this right?

I edited for ~5 years under a static IP. Not a lot of edits (1700-odd) for that sort of duration, but I only edited at work during times when I would otherwise alternate between staring at a progress bar and the wall.

Before I started editing I gnomed and read the drama boards for their entertainment value, and in doing so picked up most of the common policies and things that trip up new editors. Once I got board-bored I shifted to improving articles in my area of interest, focusing on neglected articles and doing minor sentence rewrites, expanding sections, adding references - nothing major. Apparently the fact that I was an IP-editing untermensch whose edits were actually coherent, properly cited using sources that were WP:RS and :V, and had edit summaries was cause for great suspicion. I never was outright accused of being a sock, but every now and then I'd have someone get snippy and question my previous edit. A few times I'd revert an obvious vandal and get reverted and uw-vandalism'd, with no response when I questioned it and cited WP:BP (just to indicate I was aware of it). Fine, be accusatory and bitey, I can AGF like the civil editor I'm supposed to be and take the high road. It just wears you down just a little each time it happens.

I quit after a longtime editor decided I was a vandal after noticing I messed up some table formatting and reverted me. I always preview my edits before submitting, so I'm not sure what happened; regardless, I screwed up and didn't notice, I'll admit that much. I ignored the fact they rolled back all of my edits on that page, even though all except the last were accurate and correctly sourced/cited. Then they started going through my edit history and critiquing them in a manner that I don't believe any other reasonable person would (e.g. I reverted an edit that added excess detail, noted it as such in the edit summary, and they told me "sources aren't excess detail."). I AGF'd a few times and explained my edits but wrote them off once they replied with "OK? I didn't revert you."

I figured if an editor of well over a decade with a large edit count can be that obtuse, fail to AGF, and insist I'm a vandal, even though a cursory glance at previous messages indicating skepticism and my edit history would dispel that notion, then their behaviour must be de facto sanctioned by the community-at-large and/or the rules governing the project don't work due to their subjectiveness and uneven enforcement. I have no interest in being a part of a community that reminds me of middle- and high-school cliques. Sorry for bitching, I'm sure everyone here knows this stuff

[FelinaLavandula]

I feel like the project benefits if I type out a cogent reply to this comment instead of just 'stfu' &c -- not just me and you, but everyone else who has to see the conversation or God forbid has to participate in it, everyone who looks through it in archives years down the line and thinks "Ah, I see, this is how editors are supposed to act", and the like. We must set an example not only for ourselves but for each other and for the future.

The only thing I gathered from your comment is that you wanted to tell me to 'stfu'.

[Randy from Boise]

I edited for ~5 years under a static IP. Not a lot of edits (1700-odd) for that sort of duration, but I only edited at work during times when I would otherwise alternate between staring at a progress bar and the wall.

Before I started editing I gnomed and read the drama boards for their entertainment value, and in doing so picked up most of the common policies and things that trip up new editors. Once I got board-bored I shifted to improving articles in my area of interest, focusing on neglected articles and doing minor sentence rewrites, expanding sections, adding references - nothing major. Apparently the fact that I was an IP-editing untermensch whose edits were actually coherent, properly cited using sources that were WP:RS and :V, and had edit summaries was cause for great suspicion. I never was outright accused of being a sock, but every now and then I'd have someone get snippy and question my previous edit. A few times I'd revert an obvious vandal and get reverted and uw-vandalism'd, with no response when I questioned it and cited WP:BP (just to indicate I was aware of it). Fine, be accusatory and bitey, I can AGF like the civil editor I'm supposed to be and take the high road. It just wears you down just a little each time it happens.

I quit after a longtime editor decided I was a vandal after noticing I messed up some table formatting and reverted me. I always preview my edits before submitting, so I'm not sure what happened; regardless, I screwed up and didn't notice, I'll admit that much. I ignored the fact they rolled back all of my edits on that page, even though all except the last were accurate and correctly sourced/cited. Then they started going through my edit history and critiquing them in a manner that I don't believe any other reasonable person would (e.g. I reverted an edit that added excess detail, noted it as such in the edit summary, and they told me "sources aren't excess detail."). I AGF'd a few times and explained my edits but wrote them off once they replied with "OK? I didn't revert you."

I figured if an editor of well over a decade with a large edit count can be that obtuse, fail to AGF, and insist I'm a vandal, even though a cursory glance at previous messages indicating skepticism and my edit history would dispel that notion, then their behaviour must be de facto sanctioned by the community-at-large and/or the rules governing the project don't work due to their subjectiveness and uneven enforcement. I have no interest in being a part of a community that reminds me of middle- and high-school cliques. Sorry for bitching, I'm sure everyone here knows this stuff

Timbo's Rule 12. Most vandalism is caused by anonymous IP editors. The only reason IP editing is allowed at all is that it makes vandalism easier to spot. (Feb. 2012)

Timbo's Rule 13. Since such a high percentage of anonymous IP editors are vandals, they are all treated like shit. Trying to make serious edits to Wikipedia as an IP editor is like blindly blundering through the countryside on the first day of hunting season dressed like a moose. (Feb. 2012)


t

[yasslay]

Longstanding Wikipedia editor Lepricavark destroyed by newbie in argument over civility in the Chris Troutman thread

[Starship Enterprise]

Longstanding Wikipedia editor Lepricavark destroyed by newbie in argument over civility in the Chris Troutman thread

He is accepting defeat with grace and dignity diff

[FelinaLavandula]

LOL, LMAO, even

[Konveyor Belt]

For someone who supposedly doesn't care for civility he's sure acting like a whiny baby and claiming people are being mean to him.

[greenday61892]

Longstanding Wikipedia editor Lepricavark destroyed by newbie in argument over civility in the Chris Troutman thread

Stop it, I'm blushing.

No but seriously, as someone who has been discouraged from editing by the incivility and peruses ANI from time to time in the naive hope that maybe it'll finally change, I'd finally gotten sick of the "please just let us do a little incivility to those we deem morons " crowd.

[rnu]

Longstanding Wikipedia editor Lepricavark destroyed by newbie in argument over civility in the Chris Troutman thread

Stop it, I'm blushing.

No but seriously, as someone who has been discouraged from editing by the incivility and peruses ANI from time to time in the naive hope that maybe it'll finally change, I'd finally gotten sick of the "please just let us do a little incivility to those we deem morons " crowd.