Beginners' guide to the manual of style: 2,344 (desperately needs updating)
The six other tutorial pages: each less than 2,000.
What they say about Tony1
Being a reformer on the English Wikipedia and further afield in the Wikimedia movement brings me into contact with many people who have vested interests in resisting change. I am truly grateful for their advice, which has been important to my ongoing program of self-improvement. Here is a list of some of the most helpful comments from March 2013 to March 2014—all rigorously fact-checked to exclude mistruths and exaggerations (diffs available on request):
I don't volunteer my time to put up with pompous asses like you.
"We won't deal with Tony1 because negotiating with terrorists is "bad", mmmmkay?"
"You are so full of nonsense."
"a complete jerk"
"This user has been a thorn in our side almost from Day 1."
"the black cloud of [his] presence"
"I'm frankly outraged by the comment by Tony1."
"if there's something more-important than Tony1's ego about, would someone please shoot it? We might be able to get on with our lives then."
"Trashing the efforts of other volunteers"
"Tony, does a day go by when you don't find fault with the sun for shining, or with lambs for gambolling in the field or with fluffy clouds for passing in the vast sky?"
"Tony, for years you've essentially done nothing but complain about the work of others. STOP IT."
"You have people like tony1 who come in and wish death on others and engage in active harassment of people they dislike which drives down editor retention."
"I assume, since you feel qualified to decide how donors' money (including mine) should - or should not - be used, you will be standing for trustee at the earliest possible opportunity?"
"distinctly irritating at times"
"until after he ... comes back to a factual, accurate, and objective discussion ... no further topics should be discussed with Tony and no answer be given. "
[DYK hooks] must be interesting to Tony, or he's going to whine and bitch about it on this talk page.
"we should just ignore Tony1"
"... you're not happy unless you're bitching about the others' work ..."
"his ad nauseum has been going on for years. Time to stop."
"When, Tony1, do you intend to run for a WMF Trustee position so you can close down [the site]?
"deliberatively provocative and unfair ..."
"Tony's tantrum is unedifying ..."
"I do not condone Tony's provocation, I just am choosing to ignore it ..."
"all Tony ever does is scream. He loves to snipe at things he doesn't like ..."
"It's deeply irritating."
"When it comes to influencing people and making friends, I've rarely seen anyone being quite as bad at it as you."
"repeated personal attacks"
"if you bleat and whine and attack, these things happen."
"you constantly throw unfounded negativity"
"His style of 'rant' and entirely uncooperative style isn't amenable in any way to improving the site."
"he's attacking with his nonsense"
"... uniformly combative, unconstructive, and insulting. He has no evident interest in advancing our project"
"he prefers to use bullying and insults to advance his chosen positions
"strident and even inflammatory"
"I will not waste time responding to Tony1's nonsense, except to say that it's total nonsense."
"you'd rather do damage than really improve things"
Jimbo: "tired old points" … Tony: "They're not tired; they're supported by a sizeable proportion of Wikimedians." … Jimbo: "Being supported by a lot of people doesn't make them any less tired."
"Stuff your pompous self-righteousness up your arse"
A fresh round of invective in late June 2014, led by Scott Martin, an administrator who still enjoys the community's confidence (that includes you).
"Pretentious babble"—I didn't appear to provide the answer he wanted.
"You wouldn't know an attack if it hit you in the backside."—Scott Martin is a crusader for our civility policy.
"Rubbish"—Scott Martin shows skills that come in useful as an admin who deals skillfully with the editing community.
"Utter codswallop. You wouldn't know an 'attack' if it hit you in the backside".—Scott Martin has a distinctive argumentative style.
"I didnt think my opinion of you could actually get lower"—Scott Martin
"buzz off"—Scott Martin has the potential to be succinct, too.
"get over yourself"—Scott Martin has a talent for aggressive, off-hand comments that belittle the recipient. This must come in very handy in his capacity as an admin dealining with the editorial community (see WP:ADMIN).
Scott Martin then trots back and forth between en.WP and the attack site [wikipediocracy.com Wikipediocracy]—the one you all support through your silence on its use by your fellow editors.
"a complete tosspot", he starts.
"dazzling ignorance ... or perhaps contempt", Scott Martin accuses there.
"you're an idiot"; "What a pathetic attempt at selective quoting and paraphrasing to push your own interpretation of events."—Scott Martin accuses others on the Wikipediocracy thread who don't agree with his tirade.
"poor little Tony"—Scott Martin on Wikipediocracy.
"All I'm getting is a big picture of Tony's bum on the horizon."—Scott Martin moves into sexualised language on Wikipediocracy.
"you risible, self-interested little toad"—Scott Martin's invective becomes virtuosic on Wikipediocracy.
"Good lord, what a pretentious little fool. You can practically hear his butthole over-tightening from here."—Scott Martin's strategy catches on among others at Wikipediocracy, which is now working towards violent imagery.
"whining ... idiocy".
"ridiculous pretention ... you can practically hear the pole squeaking. He could shave himself using a dental mirror."
"You haven't got a bloody clue."—Scott Martin comes back to ensure the tone is sustained. See below.
"The pole is stuck in the fundament. It's been joined by his head, so much so that he can see his own head when he sticks a mirror in his mouth."—Someone at Wikipediocracy is adding violence to the sexualised insults.
"Before I thought he was merely clueless. Now I think he is, not well."
"utterly rephrehensible. I say that without an ounce of vitriol"—Scott Martin returns with questionable logic.
"hissy fit ... sheer arrogance"
"Tony1 is a far bigger asshole than he originally appeared"
"complete bully like Tony1"
"Tony1 is oftentimes a jerk"
Avoid phrases such as remember that and note that, which address readers directly in an unencyclopedic tone. Similarly, phrases such as of course, naturally, obviously, clearly, and actually make presumptions about readers' knowledge, and call into question the reason for including the information in the first place.
"We have a house-style to minimise arguments on article talkpages." - Interesting. The result - in the case that still troubles me - is the opposite. An article could have been - as intended - my silent undebated Christmas present to the world, A Boy was Born. Instead, came the defenders of the holy house style, - and look at the debate. House style defenders took the image which proves them wrong from the article, and rather recently requested that the line saying it was not printed as they like it should also go. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Like democracy, it's not a perfect system; but can you imagine an editor-dense space like en.WP without centralised rules? It would be far worse. By contrast, most WMF sites have much lower levels of editor density; es.WP is a good example—like a ghost town, much of it, and you do as you please; but football articles, which are thronging with invested editors, have strict rules. Now, let me look at this article you refer to. Tony(talk) 14:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC) Well ... George Ho sometimes does things that irritate me, I have to say, but here, I see the point—can't you get an image of the whole front page of the score? Such a partial representation seems a little pointless to me. (I haven't looked at the talkpage.) Tony(talk) 14:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello Tony1, May you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New year 2015. Happy editing, The Herald : here I am