Uncyclopedia:Assume bad faith

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Can you direct me to the railway station?" asks the stranger. "Certainly," says the local, pointing in the opposite direction, towards the post office, "and would you post this letter for me on your way?" "Certainly," says the stranger, resolving to open it to see if it contains anything worth stealing.

~ Amartya Sen
Villianc

Everybody is acting in bad faith except me, my monkey and The Cabal. (and sometimes, I'm worried about the monkey).

Here are a few things that, if you ever find yourself thinking them, are probably reasons enough to take some time away from whatever it is you were doing, unless you are an administrator, in which case ban all users involved:

  1. "That editor is a..."
    • "sockpuppet"
    • "zealot"
    • "cliquish POV pusher"
    • "troll"
    • "power-drunk admin"
    • "stalker"
  2. "This is the work of the Cabal!"
  3. "That editor is gay!"
  4. "This is all to promote the ________ agenda!"
  5. "The other guy is only doing this because he hates me."
  6. "If I compromise, they'll know it's a sign of weakness."
  7. "I can do whatever I want, even if policy goes against me."
  8. "I have my own Prime Directive: Ignore all rules"
  9. "Everybody is wrong, crazy, retarded or all of the above. Except me."
  10. "If all else fails, I'll complain to Jimbo. That'll shut them up."
  11. "Policy was misused against me, and even if it wasn't, the policy sucks."
  12. "Don't you people have anything better to do than to keep asking for sources?"
  13. "That policy page is wrong, because it doesn't describe what I do. I'll fix it."
  14. "While I'm at it I'll alter another policy that I'll cite as precedent."
  15. "Policies are only guidelines! Unless they support my position, in which case they are, of course, set in stone."
  16. "Filling a user's talk page with the word 'fuck' 800 times will persuade him/her of my point of view."
  17. "An article that was formerly here was deleted, so this new article must be a re-creation of deleted content!"
  18. "That editor knows NOTHING about what he's writing about, what business does he have with this article?"
  19. "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."
  20. "That guy who's supporting my opponent is either a sockpuppet or a friend called in to help. After all, could more than one person oppose my natural good sense?"
  21. "If all of Uncyclopedia doesn't shape up and remove everything that doesn't reflect funny 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."
  22. "That's not the consensus version, only my version can be the consensus version. I know, I'll revert!"
  23. "If I change this . to a , in UN:OMGTMDTLA, section 2.3 2nd paragraph line 12, policy will cover my ass!"
  24. "OH! I'm at 2 reverts, he's at 3, so 1 more revert, and he goes over!"
  25. "I don't care if HTBFANJS is a policy, that admin is just bullying me!"
  26. "That's retarded fascism."
  27. "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."
  28. "If three editors revert my edits it's not consensus. It's a cabal."
  29. "If an administrator joins them it's an abuse of power."
  30. "Anyone who edits my words is committing censorship."
  31. "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!"
  32. "That was a false consensus! I couldn't participate because I was blocked for reverting and disruption."
  33. "I can still accuse you of original research if I don't read your citations."
  34. "Prove it." (As soon as you do I'll raise the bar a little higher).
  35. "Well, yeah, I make up my references. Don't you do that too?"
  36. "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..."
  37. "Instead of moving on and focusing on our real lives, let's just quarrel for weeks."
  38. "Terible symtax and spelling you hav. For you I fizxed the whol articlee."
  39. "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."
  40. "This guy moved pages quickly, therefore he must be a vandalbot!"
  41. "I can disguise my own history of blocks and warnings if I just keep accusing the other editor of breaking policy."
  42. "This 'copyediting' idea is wonderful: those other editors don't know what a gerund is. Now I can write things my way."
  43. "I categorically reject your analysis of my advertising DVD's in Uncyclopedia articles as false and itself biased! Wait till my "organization" gets a hold of you...."
  44. "I don't like where you moved this page, so you were doing it to provoke an edit war."
  45. "This experience [of having my vanity edits reverted, and getting blocked for telling an admin to fuck off] has severely tainted the image of Uncyclopedia and unless justice is served I doubt I will ever use Uncyclopedia again."
  46. "This [having links I inserted to my own Web site removed and getting blocked after re-inserting them] 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?"
  47. "This person is insinuating that there were ever raids on Habbo Hotel/Child grooming leads to Child pornography/ other standpoint I irrationally defend. They must be an ED spy, so it's best I just write a script to revert everything they do."
  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 don't like that quoted passage - I'll rewrite the quote!"
  51. "Somebody already put a footnote at the end of this paragraph. Sweet! I can write anything I want here and it will look referenced."
  52. "My opinion becomes true if I keep repeating it on the talk page."
  53. "Under the terms of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 Section 1ai Uncyclopedia is forbidden from conveying a letter or other article which is 'indecent or grossly offensive' under penalty of Michael Jackson. I therefore advise you to delete the content of this article and of any other article I happen to find offensive because of my cloistered, boring life and and any content related thereto."

edit See also

Spork This page was originally sporked from Wikipedia.
Personal tools
projects