FORUM WARNING [2] Division by zero (Line: 2933 of /srcsgcaop/boardclass.php)
Ktr101 RfA - 4th time the charm? -
     
 
The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> Ktr101 RfA - 4th time the charm?, Or will NW nuke him?
A Horse With No Name
post
Post #1


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,471
Joined:
Member No.: 9,985



To quote the Chairman of the Board - just what makes that little ol' ant think he can move a rubber tree plant? Everyone knows an ant...can't...move a rubber tree plant. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

But whatever high hopes he had seem to have been kneecap whacked by our favorite NW, leading the Oppose charge. Plus, there is a vague acknowledgment by the candidate of a "a copyright problem at an article I created" -- hmmm, that may explain why an Arbcom member nominated him for adminship! (Arbcom to community: send more plagiarists!) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

By the way, Ktr101 is also on Facebook. The kid needs to spend more quality time at Popeye's Fried Chicken! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Replies
Theanima
post
Post #2


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 222
Joined:
Member No.: 18,566



Can this thread be tarpitted? Dumbass dogbiscuit is posting personal information that was probably intended to be private.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dogbiscuit
post
Post #3


Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
********

Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined:
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015



QUOTE(Theanima @ Tue 1st June 2010, 3:07am) *

Can this thread be tarpitted? Dumbass dogbiscuit is posting personal information that was probably intended to be private.

I have no Facebook relationship with this person. I blanked the email addresses. I felt the sheer quantity of publicly available information was noteworthy.

I do note that his birthdate is in there, so I'll happily blank that, there was so much information up there I didn't spot it.

If it wasn't intentional that he published it, then is the sort of person you want administrating Wikipedia, obviously someone of sound judgement.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Theanima
post
Post #4


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 222
Joined:
Member No.: 18,566



QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Tue 1st June 2010, 8:37am) *

QUOTE(Theanima @ Tue 1st June 2010, 3:07am) *

Can this thread be tarpitted? Dumbass dogbiscuit is posting personal information that was probably intended to be private.

I have no Facebook relationship with this person. I blanked the email addresses. I felt the sheer quantity of publicly available information was noteworthy.

I do note that his birthdate is in there, so I'll happily blank that, there was so much information up there I didn't spot it.

If it wasn't intentional that he published it, then is the sort of person you want administrating Wikipedia, obviously someone of sound judgement.


That's strange, I don't recall wanting him to become an admin. Of course, you know me better than I do.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dogbiscuit
post
Post #5


Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
********

Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined:
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015



QUOTE(Theanima @ Tue 1st June 2010, 3:54pm) *

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Tue 1st June 2010, 8:37am) *

QUOTE(Theanima @ Tue 1st June 2010, 3:07am) *

Can this thread be tarpitted? Dumbass dogbiscuit is posting personal information that was probably intended to be private.

I have no Facebook relationship with this person. I blanked the email addresses. I felt the sheer quantity of publicly available information was noteworthy.

I do note that his birthdate is in there, so I'll happily blank that, there was so much information up there I didn't spot it.

If it wasn't intentional that he published it, then is the sort of person you want administrating Wikipedia, obviously someone of sound judgement.


That's strange, I don't recall wanting him to become an admin. Of course, you know me better than I do.

<sigh> Typos excepted, I would hope that those people who like to go around throwing casual insults would at least have the understanding of English.

I'll put it more simply:

If someone does not understand the implications of publishing highly personal information, including that which includes comments that could be taken as racist, and does himself no favours in terms of his CV, is he the sort of person that should be given access to stand in judgement over other people and have privileged access to information?

Put another way, is this the sort of person who increases the stature of Wikipedia?

The "it's just some tools" meme died a long time ago.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Theanima
post
Post #6


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 222
Joined:
Member No.: 18,566



QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Tue 1st June 2010, 4:31pm) *

QUOTE(Theanima @ Tue 1st June 2010, 3:54pm) *

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Tue 1st June 2010, 8:37am) *

QUOTE(Theanima @ Tue 1st June 2010, 3:07am) *

Can this thread be tarpitted? Dumbass dogbiscuit is posting personal information that was probably intended to be private.

I have no Facebook relationship with this person. I blanked the email addresses. I felt the sheer quantity of publicly available information was noteworthy.

I do note that his birthdate is in there, so I'll happily blank that, there was so much information up there I didn't spot it.

If it wasn't intentional that he published it, then is the sort of person you want administrating Wikipedia, obviously someone of sound judgement.


That's strange, I don't recall wanting him to become an admin. Of course, you know me better than I do.

<sigh> Typos excepted, I would hope that those people who like to go around throwing casual insults would at least have the understanding of English.

I'll put it more simply:

If someone does not understand the implications of publishing highly personal information, including that which includes comments that could be taken as racist, and does himself no favours in terms of his CV, is he the sort of person that should be given access to stand in judgement over other people and have privileged access to information?

Put another way, is this the sort of person who increases the stature of Wikipedia?

The "it's just some tools" meme died a long time ago.


Um, this was never in dispute. I opposed the guy for goodness sake. What is the issue is your unnecessary posting of his information here. As if to prove some sort of a point.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GlassBeadGame
post
Post #7


Dharma Bum
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981



QUOTE(Theanima @ Tue 1st June 2010, 10:12am) *

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Tue 1st June 2010, 4:31pm) *

QUOTE(Theanima @ Tue 1st June 2010, 3:54pm) *

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Tue 1st June 2010, 8:37am) *

QUOTE(Theanima @ Tue 1st June 2010, 3:07am) *

Can this thread be tarpitted? Dumbass dogbiscuit is posting personal information that was probably intended to be private.

I have no Facebook relationship with this person. I blanked the email addresses. I felt the sheer quantity of publicly available information was noteworthy.

I do note that his birthdate is in there, so I'll happily blank that, there was so much information up there I didn't spot it.

If it wasn't intentional that he published it, then is the sort of person you want administrating Wikipedia, obviously someone of sound judgement.


That's strange, I don't recall wanting him to become an admin. Of course, you know me better than I do.

<sigh> Typos excepted, I would hope that those people who like to go around throwing casual insults would at least have the understanding of English.

I'll put it more simply:

If someone does not understand the implications of publishing highly personal information, including that which includes comments that could be taken as racist, and does himself no favours in terms of his CV, is he the sort of person that should be given access to stand in judgement over other people and have privileged access to information?

Put another way, is this the sort of person who increases the stature of Wikipedia?

The "it's just some tools" meme died a long time ago.


Um, this was never in dispute. I opposed the guy for goodness sake. What is the issue is your unnecessary posting of his information here. As if to prove some sort of a point.

He just told you, in plan English, the point. What does your personal position on his Rf A have to do with anything? Make sense to me.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Theanima
post
Post #8


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 222
Joined:
Member No.: 18,566



QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Tue 1st June 2010, 5:19pm) *

QUOTE(Theanima @ Tue 1st June 2010, 10:12am) *

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Tue 1st June 2010, 4:31pm) *

QUOTE(Theanima @ Tue 1st June 2010, 3:54pm) *

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Tue 1st June 2010, 8:37am) *

QUOTE(Theanima @ Tue 1st June 2010, 3:07am) *

Can this thread be tarpitted? Dumbass dogbiscuit is posting personal information that was probably intended to be private.

I have no Facebook relationship with this person. I blanked the email addresses. I felt the sheer quantity of publicly available information was noteworthy.

I do note that his birthdate is in there, so I'll happily blank that, there was so much information up there I didn't spot it.

If it wasn't intentional that he published it, then is the sort of person you want administrating Wikipedia, obviously someone of sound judgement.


That's strange, I don't recall wanting him to become an admin. Of course, you know me better than I do.

<sigh> Typos excepted, I would hope that those people who like to go around throwing casual insults would at least have the understanding of English.

I'll put it more simply:

If someone does not understand the implications of publishing highly personal information, including that which includes comments that could be taken as racist, and does himself no favours in terms of his CV, is he the sort of person that should be given access to stand in judgement over other people and have privileged access to information?

Put another way, is this the sort of person who increases the stature of Wikipedia?

The "it's just some tools" meme died a long time ago.


Um, this was never in dispute. I opposed the guy for goodness sake. What is the issue is your unnecessary posting of his information here. As if to prove some sort of a point.

He just told you, in plan English, the point. What does your personal position on his Rf A have to do with anything? Make sense to me.


He wrote "If it wasn't intentional that he published it, then is the sort of person you want administrating Wikipedia, obviously someone of sound judgement.". (Emphasis mine) I replied with "That's strange, I don't recall wanting him to become an admin. Of course, you know me better than I do." He then started ranting about how he wasn't suitable.

dogbiscuit is the one who decided to make this personal. I have explained how I don't support his promotion to administrator, yet dogbiscuit, for some bizarre reason, continues to try and justify his immoral posting of personal information, to prove a point everyone can see already and already agrees with. Posting the information was just cruel, and of course, pointless.

I can only assume the both of you are blinded in your hatred for Wikipedia and cannot read plain English, even when you write it yourself.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dogbiscuit
post
Post #9


Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
********

Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined:
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015



QUOTE(Theanima @ Tue 1st June 2010, 5:25pm) *


He wrote "If it wasn't intentional that he published it, then is the sort of person you want administrating Wikipedia, obviously someone of sound judgement.". (Emphasis mine) I replied with "That's strange, I don't recall wanting him to become an admin. Of course, you know me better than I do." He then started ranting about how he wasn't suitable.

dogbiscuit is the one who decided to make this personal. I have explained how I don't support his promotion to administrator, yet dogbiscuit, for some bizarre reason, continues to try and justify his immoral posting of personal information, to prove a point everyone can see already and already agrees with. Posting the information was just cruel, and of course, pointless.

I can only assume the both of you are blinded in your hatred for Wikipedia and cannot read plain English, even when you write it yourself.

I alluded to a typo - the sentence was supposed to read "If it wasn't intentional that he published it, then is that the sort of person you want administrating Wikipedia? [he is] <sarcasm>obviously someone of sound judgement.</sarcasm>" However, as it wasn't very well written I tried to put it another way, and in true Internet style you ignore that, go back, and have a good old whine about the original typo.

I don't think I was ranting - but then, as you don't seem to detect it in your own excitable writing, perhaps we simply have different definitions. You suggest that I have made it personal, when you start off the whole thing by calling me a dumbass. Typical Wikipedian, that you should be so full of your own importance that you think others are going to dredge through the RFA page to divine what you might be thinking. I thought it was fairly clear that I don't understand where you stand, I don't see where you said plainly on WR that you opposed him.

Elsewhere we were discussing about whether the distorted judgement standards of Wikipedia affected its membership and whether there were examples of where these standards got dragged to the outside world. Clearly, you inhabit that world, I am amazed that you can be so enraged by someone quoting someone else's publicly published words, words that aren't just embarrassing but show a lack of judgement.

I'd agree that there is a streak of cruelty in seeing the plain embarrassment of such an immature posting; but this is about highlighting the fundamental problems of Wikipedia. Remember that we have listened to the ravings of the WMF who hold up the young as the solution to expertise - the naiveté of youth is set up as the gold standard of encyclopedia writing. Point out that this is a crock of shit, in Whacky-Wiki-World it is not the problem of the idiots on Wikipedia who haven't got a clue, it is the rest of the world that is at fault.

I used to think that Wikipedia was salvageable, but the determined self-destruction, rather than improving the management of the site "Teh Communeh" is determined to drive Wikipedia into an abyss of distorted thinking, as the cultists cannot see that they themselves are the ones drilling holes in the bottom of the sinking ship to hasten themselves on their way.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
A Horse With No Name   Ktr101 RfA - 4th time the charm?  
dogbiscuit   By the way, Ktr101 is also on Facebook. The kid ...  
A Horse With No Name   Interested in: Women Oppose. Too many heterose...  
Milton Roe   Can this thread be tarpitted? Dumbass dogbiscuit ...  
Kelly Martin   Can this thread be tarpitted? Dumbass dogbiscuit i...  
EricBarbour   Can this thread be tarpitted? Dumbass dogbiscuit i...  
A Horse With No Name   Put another way, is this the sort of person who i...  
Cedric   dogbiscuit is the one who decided to make this pe...  
Malleus   I used to think that Wikipedia was salvageable, b...  
Zoloft   A great argument you guys are, for anonymity here....  
One   A great argument you guys are, for anonymity here...  
Milton Roe   A great argument you guys are, for anonymity here...  
CharlotteWebb   P.S. One assumes from the username that Mr. Ruthe...  
Milton Roe   [quote name='Milton Roe' post='238627' date='Tue ...  
A Horse With No Name   And his long jump is apparently 12 ft., 1 in. :rol...  
Malleus   As for poor KTR - will someone fetch a crat (ther...  
CharlotteWebb   The rules of engagement at RfA are that the victi...  
Killiondude   But suppose he or she is incapacitated? Is that ...  
A Horse With No Name   The rules of engagement at RfA are that the victi...  
Malleus   The rules of engagement at RfA are that the vict...  
A Horse With No Name   I've said before that nominators should think ...  
CharlotteWebb   Here is a fun idea: no more nominators. If you w...  
MC10   As for poor KTR - will someone fetch a crat (the...  
Moulton   A lot of people on Facebook have a love-hate relat...  
ulsterman   To quote the Chairman of the Board - just what ma...  
A Horse With No Name   Interesting range of opposers. Where else will yo...  
Rick   I thought this bloke was already an admin? [quo...  
CharlotteWebb   [quote name='Rick' post='232694' date='Fri 23rd A...  
A Horse With No Name   So, KTR is still holding on despite a very obvious...  
Zoloft   I favor randomly awarding adminship to one in ever...  
Milton Roe   I favor randomly awarding adminship to one in eve...  
Zoloft   I favor randomly awarding adminship to one in ev...  
GlassBeadGame   I favor randomly awarding adminship to one in eve...  
One   [quote name='Zoloft' post='238996' date='Fri 4th ...  
ulsterman   [quote name='GlassBeadGame' post='239332' date='S...  
One   Maybe Zoloft can clarify his proposal. However, I...  
CharlotteWebb   If so, it's not a bad idea and would help to...  
Zoloft   The numbers can be recrunched. It's the mecha...  


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

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: