The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> Help

This forum is for discussing specific Wikipedia editors, editing patterns, and general efforts by those editors to influence or direct content in ways that might not be in keeping with Wikipedia policy. Please source your claims and provide links where appropriate. For a glossary of terms frequently used when discussing Wikipedia and related projects, please refer to Wikipedia:Glossary.

2 Pages V < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Would-be admin Davidwr's dark secret?
Kato
post Thu 5th February 2009, 11:50pm
Post #21


dhd
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,521
Joined: Fri 29th Dec 2006, 8:39pm
Member No.: 767



QUOTE(Viridae @ Thu 5th February 2009, 11:44pm) *

Tienanmen square guy's identity was never publicly released and is considered unknown.


And let's face it, standing in front of tanks and protesting for a social glasnost in China, isn't really the same as anonymously arguing a few times on Wikipedia for the "human right to watch, keep, create, and distribute some child pornography, at least as it's defined by the IWF". Is it?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Viridae
post Thu 5th February 2009, 11:51pm
Post #22


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,319
Joined: Sat 19th May 2007, 4:16am
Member No.: 1,498

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Kato @ Fri 6th February 2009, 10:50am) *

QUOTE(Viridae @ Thu 5th February 2009, 11:44pm) *

Tienanmen square guy's identity was never publicly released and is considered unknown.


And let's face it, standing in front of tanks and protesting for a social glasnost in China, isn't really the same as anonymously arguing a few times on Wikipedia for the "human right to watch, keep, create, and distribute some child pornography, at least as it's defined by the IWF". Is it?


I should hope not.

This post has been edited by Viridae: Fri 6th February 2009, 12:29am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Fri 6th February 2009, 5:57am
Post #23


Can't actually moderate (or even post)
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,815
Joined: Sat 17th Jun 2006, 7:47pm
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275



One thing I can say about most Wikipedians, and this is also (purely by coincidence I assure you) true of most narcissists who are caught doing something bad, is that they're very good at framing the debate about their activities, beliefs, etc., themselves. In as self-serving a way as possible, of course...

Mr. Davidwr (T-C-L-K-R-D) would like to be an administrator, and doesn't believe that his "past" should get in the way, and who can blame him? Here's how he puts it, though (and I've removed the boldfacing, underlining, etc., a time-honored technique for making already-unreadable prose seem even more unreadable):
QUOTE(User:Davidwr @ 04:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC))
The question is, how long is long enough before 70-80% of active Wikipedians would not object to an administrator candidate who had a checkered long-ago past under another account or accounts and who refused to give details of what that past including the specific edits or the specific account, but did openly admit there serious problem in the past and was willing to discuss the issue in broad terms and it was clear that the offensive editing behavior was long-ago abandoned, or if not completely abandoned [see Virgin Killer discussion elsewhere in this thread], what steps the editor was doing to edit with discipline, and would 70-80% of active Wikipedians be okay with arbcom members and checkusers remaining silent about it? Are we talking 1-2 years or 10-20?

Having read that over a few times I'm tempted to say that the answer is obviously "17 years, 4 months, 9 days, 6 hours, and 48 minutes." But by donig so, I'd be doing exactly what he wants, wouldn't I?

In fact, "the question" being posed isn't the question at all. If we were to assume (falsely, of course) that the WP community was made up of reasonably ordinary, responsible people, there simply should be no "question" here whatsoever. People who live within the bounds of modern social acceptability, discretion, and propriety - and those bounds are extremely wide these days - would, instead, want to know whether or not Mr. Davidwr has abandoned, or better yet reversed, his ideological positions on the things that "got him into trouble in the past," assuming those things are in fact what some people are speculating they are. Whether or not he merely abandons the "editing behavior" isn't something people should care about. And by no means should they want to have to come up with some arbitrary number to represent a length of time that has to pass before three-quarters of the WP user base is willing to simply look the other way.

One might well go further by saying that this is not only a self-serving question, but also a stupid question, because no single answer can possibly be correct. But of course, Wikipedia is all about the "consensus," and since consensus can be gamed, that's why you get the question.

You'd hope that nobody would answer this question at all, but of course, lots of WP'ers are eager to do so. And so, he wins, at least in his effort to frame the debate.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Bottled_Spider
post Fri 6th February 2009, 12:06pm
Post #24


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 533
Joined: Sun 11th Jan 2009, 8:27pm
From: Pictland
Member No.: 9,708



Reading through the David guy's turgid talkpage gives me the impression that he would mud-wrestle his own grandmother for the chance to become an admin. There's an air of desperation about him; an almost single-minded pursuit of recognition and "status" that is very sad to behold. Presumably he thinks that a successful election campaign would nullify his awful past and make him loved in the community. Jesus.

I don't think the Wiki nobodies who are showering him with mindless/embarassing praise ("Now you know, david, why we are so desperate to hurry you through RfA - because that's the kind of AGF and helpfulness we need in an admin :-)") realise how cruel they're being. Or maybe they do.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Michaeldsuarez
post Thu 4th December 2014, 12:22am
Post #25


Über Member
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 562
Joined: Mon 9th Aug 2010, 7:51pm
From: New York, New York
Member No.: 24,428

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Kato @ Thu 5th February 2009, 6:50pm) *

And let's face it, standing in front of tanks and protesting for a social glasnost in China, isn't really the same as anonymously arguing a few times on Wikipedia for the "human right to watch, keep, create, and distribute some child pornography, at least as it's defined by the IWF". Is it?


https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Evil-unveiled.com/Davidwr.

Davidwr was particpant on the Christian Boylove Forum, BoyChat, and GirlChat.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Retrospect
post Sun 14th December 2014, 6:36pm
Post #26


Londoner born and bred
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 263
Joined: Wed 7th Dec 2011, 1:16pm
From: London
Member No.: 71,989

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Why oh why do Wikipedians tolerate fuckers like that? Don't they know it will ruin their image? Bloody fools.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Anonymous editor
post Fri 15th September 2017, 7:18pm
Post #27


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon 4th Aug 2008, 6:21pm
Member No.: 7,398

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



the result?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th 10 17, 5:20am