Wikipedia Sucks!

I always thought this guy was just a child or a bit retarded, and so could perhaps be spared scrutiny for his flaws. As time has gone on, it has become clear he must at least be an adult of non-retarded status, and thus he really does deserve being shot with shit for being the sort of arrogant know nothing fool he clearly is.

Not only does he regularly say and do the stupidest things, he's a habitually rude asshole too. He claims his behaviour is due to having a bit of a temper, and with no sense of irony, being someone who doesn't suffer tools gladly. He has of course been warned countless times about both his edits and behaviour, but it doesn't make any difference.

Naturally, he doesn't actually do any heavy lifting, content wise, he's one of those ever present gnome pests who makes lots of use of script assitance, with a particular obsession with AfD.

Unbelievably, some seem to think he would make a good admin. If Wikipedia ever had any standards to begin with, that this is even a consideration, shows how hard up they are now as far as attracting well adjusted competent humans to be highly active users, willing to put the many hours required into the relatively boring task of site maintenance.

Although he is that bad, it's a tough call to even argue he is a net benefit. As is normal in this decline phase of Wikipedia, much of the damage he does simply passes by unnoticed. His nature probably persuaded a few others who might, not to bother brining it up.

Another classic Davey moment.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... _this_page

Unsurprisingly, he can't really explain why he thought an Administrator's noticeboard with just a couple of open reports on it, was a good idea.

Hilariously, the closer seems to have not even noticed Davey is not an admin, thus "trouting" him for not being "sufficiently competent to use their discretion" is not technically possible.

He has given his customary 'sorry, won't happen again' response. Which means that while he probably won't make that specific fuck up again, there's no real reason to think another fuck up isn't just around the corner.

The guy is just one giant walking fuck up. Even for Wikipedia, the very idea he could be mistaken an admin, is surely laughable. Or is it.......

Given the subject of that report above, here's a collection of recent examples of how this schmuck chooses to archive his own talk page.....

Using rollback to remove a complaint about a misuse of rollback.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =843635553

Remove complaints about incivility (he's on a warning for that)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =843640202

Removed a request not to be so incompetent (related to archiving screw up)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =843758451

As above

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =844225253

That was what I managed to find just on the first page of his talk page edit history.........

And for those wondering, these aren't finding their way into his archive through manual effort, it stops at 8 May, where his oldest current section starts.

What a gimp.....

I'm following BRD which is a core policy here –Davey2010Talk 21:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not a policy, and he wasn't following it anyway. All the other usual problems were in attendance in this incident too.

Learning difficulties really is the only explanation for how someone can be this clueless after YEARS of mindless button mashing on Wikipedia.

What interest me is, why do Admins like NeilN just stand back and watch, like it's totally normal? Does Neil worry that if he pruned the editor base of the utter retards, Admins like him might not look so knowledgeable or experienced?

Blocked for 24 hours, for personal attacks.

Why do they bother? Study the incident and you see a familiar pattern - Davey is just not all there. The personal attacks and general dickishness just come at the end, presumably out of frustration because normal people have got no chance when it comes to figuring out why this guy does what he does.

That and the fact he clearly can't or won't do what is necessary to honour his promise to cut out the incivility. In that light, 24 hours is incredibly generous. And indeed, pointless.

He's been on Wikipedia years, yet claims he doesn't know how to do merges. That was just one aspect of this ridiculous episode. Not knowing or caring about proper AfD procedure was another. Despite him working at AfD all the time. Edit warring was another, and with an admin no less.

It has to be said, learning difficulties is the only plausible explanation for all this, and other aspects of his behaviour which are familiar and unchanging. Like how he is constantly hedging over whether he has done right or wrong, or if others did right or wrong to him.

Bizarrely, in reply to the block he said he was just about to go back and "scrub that [his attack] and apologise". That would be a neat trick, since it's an edit summary. It needs an admin to scrub it, and by rule they cannot do so for mere acts of ordinary personal attacks. Just another thing he simply doesn't know, but which you would assume an editor of his service and experience would know.

You could tell him that, and he'd probably say, gee, I did not know that, thanks for the information, but based on the whole picture of who he is and what he does, you get the feeling he'd be saying it again in six months, not remembering what he was told.

Like a faithful dog who is now shitting all over the floor, I fear they just don't have what it takes to put him down. Although in Davey's case, he's been shitting on the floor since he first arrived.

Unsurprisingly, he regrets what he said, and wishes he has never done it. But he also says he thinks he should have just gotten off with a warning. History has shown, the only people who are that confused about how Wikipedia governance is meant to work, after this many years of editting, are those who eventually get banned because they can't or won't behave properly, or wrongly assume it is about punishment, not correction.

I have some sympathy with the Admins, assuming any are taking an active interest in his case. It's not like they really have 'irreformably disruptive due to learning difficulties' as an option in the drop down menu for a block rationale. And he's been there way too long for a simple WP:COMPETENCE block to stick. While it has been tried, that really doesn't exist for long term users.

Found this by complete accident but nonetheless I’ll address all points raised:

“I always thought this guy was just a child or a bit retarded”
I’m not retarded …. Agreed I’m not the sharpest tool in the box but I’m certainly not retarded!,


“Not only does he regularly say and do the stupidest things”
When you say ‘regularly’ you actually mean ‘occasionally’ ….. Sure I might make the odd “stupid” action or comment but it’s certainly not a regular occurrence,


“He has of course been warned countless times about both his edits and behaviour”
I disagree with that, I’ve been warned about my incivility since being there but I don’t recall being warned “countless times” about my edits,


“Naturally, he doesn't actually do any heavy lifting, content wise, he's one of those ever present gnome pests who makes lots of use of script assitance, with a particular obsession with AfD.”
I’ve never been the one to write articles however https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dave ... ve_rescued makes your point somewhat moot, Sure It’s not much compared to what other well-known editors do however in my eyes it’s still something, I enjoy sourcing articles/improving them and I also enjoy making the little fixes to articles – Sure some think these sort of changes are pointless and others think my gnomish work is of help,
Inregards to your last comment there is no obsession with AFD, I used to enjoy closing them years back but I wouldn’t say I had an obsession with it,


“Unbelievably, some seem to think he would make a good admin”
I know shock horror!,


“Although he is that bad, it's a tough call to even argue he is a net benefit”
That’s your opinion but personally I believe I’m a net benefit to the project and so do others,


“He has given his customary 'sorry, won't happen again' response. Which means that while he probably won't make that specific fuck up again, there's no real reason to think another fuck up isn't just around the corner. ”
No doubt about it I’ll fuck up at some point because that’s what us humans do! – We make mistakes from time to time and we obviously learn from them,


“The guy is just one giant walking fuck up”
Again your opinion which ofcourse I disagree with.

--- 2nd paragraph ---

“What a gimp.....
I'm following BRD which is a core policy here –Davey2010Talk 21:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)”
Agreed BRD ISN’T a core policy – No idea why that was said but I accept that as being a stupid comment,


“Learning difficulties really is the only explanation for how someone can be this clueless after YEARS of mindless button mashing on Wikipedia.”
My mental capacity good or bad is of no concern or relevance, Again my article improvements would prove I do a lot more than just “mindless button mashing”,


“The personal attacks and general dickishness just come at the end, presumably out of frustration because normal people have got no chance when it comes to figuring out why this guy does what he does.”
Wrong, I don’t get frustrated over “normal people having no chance when it comes to figuring out why I do what I do”, I get frustrated over peoples actions or comments …. Probably shouldn’t mind,


“That and the fact he clearly can't or won't do what is necessary to honour his promise to cut out the incivility. In that light, 24 hours is incredibly generous. And indeed, pointless.”
The incivility all comes from me being easily frustrated/angered, It’s just a part of who I am and no amount of blocking will change that, I have a nice side and I have a dickish side … suppose everyone does really,


“He's been on Wikipedia years, yet claims he doesn't know how to do merges. That was just one aspect of this ridiculous episode. Not knowing or caring about proper AfD procedure was another. Despite him working at AfD all the time. Edit warring was another, and with an admin no less. ”
I know how to merge but at times I’m not sure on the best way to merge in that do I merge a section of an article or the whole thing ? ….. It obviously depends on the article but I will admit sometimes I’m not too sure so I try and leave merges so that I don’t fuck it up,


“Like how he is constantly hedging over whether he has done right or wrong, ”
I wouldn’t say I “constantly hedge” …. Sure there is the odd occasion where I’m not too sure if I’m doing something correct or not however that’s generally rare these days,


“or if others did right or wrong to him. ” - I’ve never in my life “hedged over whether anyone’s done right or wrong to me” never,

--- 3rd paragraph ---

“Bizarrely, in reply to the block he said he was just about to go back and "scrub that [his attack] and apologise". That would be a neat trick, since it's an edit summary. It needs an admin to scrub it, and by rule they cannot do so for mere acts of ordinary personal attacks. Just another thing he simply doesn't know, but which you would assume an editor of his service and experience would know. ”
Wrong choice of words, Scrub should’ve said “Made a null edit to remove the edit summary from watchlists”, Admins had seen that comment and not one had “scrubbed” it ….. so that would indicate it’s not really offensive and certainly isn’t something worth bothering with,


“You could tell him that, and he'd probably say, gee, I did not know that, thanks for the information, but based on the whole picture of who he is and what he does, you get the feeling he'd be saying it again in six months, not remembering what he was told. ”
Comments stick, and it’s worth noting other than the incivility I’m never been rewarned or retold about anything else,


“Like a faithful dog who is now shitting all over the floor, I fear they just don't have what it takes to put him down. Although in Davey's case, he's been shitting on the floor since he first arrived. ”
Wow what a crappy thing to say (no pun intended),
Sure like everyone I too was completely clueless at the beginning but 5 years on and I’d say I’m pretty much the sum of all knowledge … well maybe not that far but I certainly know more than what I did and I’ve certainly pulled my weight – Again like I mentioned above I’m no content creator but I still believe I’ve pulled my weight over there,


“Unsurprisingly, he regrets what he said, and wishes he has never done it. But he also says he thinks he should have just gotten off with a warning. History has shown, the only people who are that confused about how Wikipedia governance is meant to work, after this many years of editting, are those who eventually get banned because they can't or won't behave properly, or wrongly assume it is about punishment, not correction. ”
Well ofcourse I’m going to regret it I’m not going to actually mean it am I? …. I get frustrated, spout shite and then regret it soon after, As for the warning later on I did state “in some ways I felt the block was justified and in others not so much”[ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... r_24_hours],
As for your last paragraph I won’t ever get blocked because everyone knows I’m never going to change as again like I said the easily frustrated is just who I am,


“I have some sympathy with the Admins, assuming any are taking an active interest in his case. It's not like they really have 'irreformably disruptive due to learning difficulties' as an option in the drop down menu for a block rationale. And he's been there way too long for a simple WP:COMPETENCE block to stick. While it has been tried, that really doesn't exist for long term users. ”
I’m occasionally incivil sure but I’m certainly not disruptive, Again that’s your opinion but the fact I’ve been there 5 years and not one admin has ever brought up CIR would indicate my competency is fine …. Like I said above I’m no genius and I will admit that to absolutely anyone but I’m certainly no idiot either,


I apologise for the long winded reply and I don’t expect you to read it all but I feel I have a right to defend myself,
I also apologise for these not being in the standard quotes - It made reading this a lot more hard work so for readibility purposes I figured this way was best,

Thanks,

Dave

Fair play to you for turning up and defending yourself. It's a rare thing, most Wikipedians being total cowards, afraid of the big bad world outside those walls.

We critics put little weight on defences like 'no other editor has ever said I do this or complained about that'. If they did so with any regularity, we'd not be able to write so much about Wikipedia problems that are clearly persistent and endemic. Issues only get that way because the wider community either doesn't see it, or doesn't care.

I think in your case, they just don't care, largely because you are hardly the worst offender in any category of badness. But it really isn't false to say you have been legitimately warned, and for more than just incivility, often enough for a willing admin to do their job and bin you. That they do not is unremarkable, we'd be here all day documenting each case of that sort of dereliction.

As I said, I only decided to write you up because you seemed to be getting a little too big for your boots, bossing others around and saying dickish things. Especially to people bringing valid complaints to your door or who make proposals you don't like, despite them often being far better editors and generally more clueful than you are, and you just not spotting it.

I am confident in my assesment, having already been aware of your other contributions, to say you are definitely a problem editor who is behind the learning curve, and you are blind to what little notice your peers will have paid to that fact up to now. As such, you over-estimate your own strength within and value to the community. It may only take something traumatic happening in that zoo, for you to see it, by which time it might be too late.

I could dispute a few other points of detail, correct a few errors in your reading of my points, even point out further examples of hedging/unclear thinking, but I think it would be rather pointless. They exist, and others can see they exist (close observers of your Wikipedia edits would not be doubting this is genuinely you posting here, nobody is that good at mimicry). Still, it is always good to have the person in question's view on the record.

Not going to lie I was originally going to ignore it but I felt I needed to reply,

Obviously I can't remember every warning I've ever recieved so I wont dispute that but truth to be told you're probably right I probably have been warned for a lot more things than just incivility,

Despite how I may come across I've never been the one to be bossy and I certainly am not IRL - If anything I'm very relaxed with pretty much anything and everything,

If someone does have a valid complaint I'm always happy to listen and try to resolve it, In Aldez's case there were various factors which to lead to all that however as I said as a whole I'm always happy to try and resolve complaints etc,

I'm my own person and I don't have to like or agree with anyone "just because they're a better editor" or "because they're more clueful" - If I object to something and it makes me look like an idiot then fine I can live with that, I'd rather have a voice than be the sheep (which I've certainly been known to do in the past),

I'm just like every other editor on the project (ie no one's better than me and I'm no better than them) - We're all human beings and so we're all equal to one another, Well that's the way I see the world anyway ,

As much as Davey2010's pile on votes get under my skin, I think calling him offensive names is wrong. Maybe some of his actions match those names but obviously not him. The fact he didn't go off on you in this post shows he isn't as bad as douchebags like Floquenbum and Ed Fitzgerald

I've already been quite clear, I don't consider him the worst, and if he hadn't started to act like he was hot shit, lecturing others on their behaviour, sitting in judgement on their futures, I wouldn't have highlighted him as a person to highlight.

It should scare people if he really is correct in his belief that he is no better or worse than any other editor on Wikipedia, because that would make for a very bad culture. In my estimation, and I've seen hundreds, he is categorically below average in his knowledge and abilities, nowhere near where the average editor is with his time served and edits made. But his behaviour is even worse.

Hence why, if he doesn't want to start making serious enemies, he needs keep away from any venue where he is tempted to speak as if he has any kind of standing or authority. I don't care if his opinions or edits make the lives of seriously bad editors worse, but the nature of Wikipedia is sadly that having someone like Davey around, causally shooting his mouth off and mashing revert as if he has a clue, it is inevitable that good people are going to suffer too. People who don't deserve to suffer.

A sign that he isn't all that clued up, is his belief everyone is equal on Wikipedia. That is the theory, but it is manifestly untrue, as anyone who hangs out at AN/I as much as he does, would know.

It is creditable that he hasn't gone off on me here, but it does highlight that his temper issues aren't as uncontrollable as he has claimed. If he is choosing to be chilled here, when I've been quite mean about him, then why does he flip out when people on Wikipedia do things which can't be remotely described as mean?

I think a big issue here, is the has no idea how he comes across, hence why he thinks he's not bossy (better described as overly opinionated, since he cannot force anyone to do anything). That is, sadly, an unfortunate side-effect of the Wikipedia community, where there is no reason for anyone to give anyone else feedback on how they come across, lest it be seen as a warning or a prelude to a block.

As seen in the latest reply, I think he has far too much pride and self-belief to ever make a good Wikipedia editor, but Wikipedia sadly lacks the mechanisms to change or remove such people, especially once they get addicted, and have reached a certain point where they assume silence is acceptance, as Davey surely is.

I disagree I would say I am knowledgeable but ofcourse I'm not going to know everything - Case in point being SPI, DYK and many others,

I'm entitled to my opinions just like everyone else on that site, If people like and agree with what I say then great but if they don't then well great ......,

Well if me having the belief that "we're all equal" means I'm clueless then I'm guilty as charged, Like I said I go with that comment in real life as well as on the project and so far I've survived both in life and on the project.

"It is creditable that he hasn't gone off on me here, but it does highlight that his temper issues aren't as uncontrollable as he has claimed. If he is choosing to be chilled here, when I've been quite mean about him, then why does he flip out when people on Wikipedia do things which can't be remotely described as mean?
" - Why would I go off here ? .... Sure I wasn't exactly thrilled but it didn't rile me up .... I accept all criticism good or bad and people criticizing me doesn't really rile me up well this certainly didn't anyway ....,

I've always believed I've come across as a calm person who just gets mad and says silly things at times but then again we all judge people differently,

Again that's your opinion ofcourse which I disagree with,