User talk:SMcCandlish/Archive 78

=May 2013=

Courtesy notification
If anyone is still watching this talk page, I linked to it here. —Neotarf (talk) 16:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I did eventually see it. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  16:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The MOS needs you!
I went away on vacation for some months, came back and noticed a distinct absence from wt:mos, poked around here and saw you were dubiously blocked and not coming back until a month ago, and thought I'd drop you a line.

There's a an exciting discussion about logical quotation going on a wt:mos. Dicklyon even linked an essay of yours. I feel like you would surely have something insightful to say. Don't let the man get you down! If you do decide to stay away, I wish you the best. AgnosticAphid talk 18:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and I appreciate the sentiment, but remain skeptical.


 * I'm seriously contemplating never editing here again. I don't feel like donating my time to a project where a couple of admins are permitted to incessantly hound me (and whomever else they target for e-assassination, like Noetica), abusing their admin status and abusing Wikipedia process in a months-long campaign of harassment, for clearly personally motivated reasons.  One has resigned adminship under a cloud, after very, very narrowly escaping being desysopped, but Sandstein continues a rampage of terror at WP:AE, unabated.  Even most other admins at AE are clearly afraid of him.  After someone just resigned from WP:ARBCOM because of its cronyism and refusal to take actions that might be unpopular in the authoritarian, control-freak atmosphere that has overwhelmed a once-open editing environment, I have little hope that my bothering with the stress and time-sink of an ArbCom case at WP:RFARB would even go anywhere. I certainly don't feel like editing MOS without ArbCom on my side, since the entire point of the harassment is to falsely set up a long-term ban for anyone (but especially any MOS regular) who crosses a certain camp of admins.  For example, Sandstein has already made it clear that this is his goal with regard to me in particular, having pushed for me being blocked for an entire year, despite my not having done anything to deserve that.  He's not going to get a victim, but a martyr.  Wikipedia's losing thousands of constructive edits per month by me, and you can lay that directly at Sandstein's feet, because I'm not about to let his false accusations and grossly involved abuses of adminship be forgotten and just go back to editing as if it didn't happen, so he can do it to me again.  Meanwhile, I've been doing other things with my life.  WP is hardly the only thing worth my time, and the more it's taken over by juvenile crypto-fascists and populated by their enablers, the less worthy it is. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  18:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * (de-lurk)
 * Well, your block record remains clean. :)
 * I have to say I'm sympathetic, often feeling that I. too, should quit. In the space of the 7 years I've been on Wikipedia, I've seen it evolve from a fun collaborative place (not without some hot disagreements about content) to a bureaucracy rife with politics and drama. I tend to stay away from those areas, but occasionally get sucked in and regret the lost hours of my life that resulted. MOS-related stuff is something I try to stay away from, personally. Fortunately Wikipedia is so vast that I can usually find something interesting to do on it with my spare time. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * All human endeavors necessarily involve politics to some extent, and politics automatically generate drama. The issue for WP is bureaucracy and its penchant for being abused by PoV-pushing parties with the patience to infiltrate and subvert the system. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  16:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)