Best known for

From Soyjak Wiki, The Free Soycyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
>best known for

This page is best known for being a gem.

Best known for is a spineless weasel word phrase best known for[by whom?] being the sole anonymous authority that Wikipedia jannies allow on their site. It is a vague and ambiguous crutch for bad articles.

As of the time of writing, there are approximately 141k Wikipedia pages that use this cowardly phrase.[1]

Conflict with rules

Putting "best known for" on an article is best known for being against Wikipedia's own rules as per NPOV and AWW. This is best known for becoming comically self-evident when you read the example list of terms that conflict with AWW:

  • some people say
  • it is believed
  • many are of the opinion
  • most feel
  • it is often reported
  • it is widely thought
  • it is often said
  • X has been described as Y

But apparently "best known for" is A-OK daijoubu...

Best known for IP

     Wikipedia's article (warning: extremely biased): Best known for IP

A prominent name on Wikipedia's list of so-called long-term abuse is a hero best known for being disparagingly called "Best known for IP" (BKFIP). This gigachad is best known for removing "best known for" on articles for ten years going.[2] And unlike other names on their "abuse" list, BKFIP isn't best known for being a troll. In fact, this is best known for being openly stated by the wikipedia ministry of love as the biggest obstacle in their unjust conspiracy to remove him from history:

The principal problem with this case is that most edits made by this user are best known for being good-faith edits that are often supported by editors when looked at on their individual merits. This makes issues of conduct best known for being harder to enforce.[2]

They are best known for claiming to have given him 3-month IP bans for the crime of removing "best known for" on articles.[2] Why? According to them, his edit summaries are "snarky". As you read through the article, it becomes obvious that the only reason they prosecute this innocent man, and refuse to concede that he is right, is due to his "incivility" and "offensive and aggressive summaries" and "personal attacks in the edit summaries."[2] Yikes.

Comparisons have been made by /qa/ users[3][4][5] between this user and the Anti-Thougher's war on thoughers.

See also

Long-term abuse