I know that we are all here to build an encyclopedia. In fact when I joined, that was what I planned to do. But I seemed to have gotten off topic in my work. (Hense the large pink spot in my editing pie chart)

Better than than just a twat like you.


We're none of us perfect, we just do the best we can as we see it. Let's put this behind us now.

Fine by me

Ahem. That's "Drunken twat".

Oh god, this thread is sooo inspiring, it's making me all teary-eyed!
To watch a 13-year-old boy being beaten up by disgruntled Wikipedia admins!!

Just explain to CE what he's supposed to do on Wikipedia, and leave him be.

While I'm not sure what I hope to gain by jumping in, how is being a naive twat preferable to being a plain old twat?

Better twatitudational excuses, man, better excuses.

Can someone move/delete this drivel?

I'm not a wikipedia admin, and never will be. I'm happy to beat up anyone, regardless of "status", age, or creed.


If you don't like it, don't read it.

Um..Im not 13.



Malleus, were'nt you an admin at one point? What happened?

No, he never was. He tried twice, I recall but failed to pass.

There are those who have a preference for naive twats.

Would there be any point in simply asking you if you're under 16, then? Or more to the point, if someone looked hard enough, would they eventually find something on Wikipedia that would lead most people to make that conclusion?

He should be though. Malleus is about the last person I can imagine using the bit irresponsibly.

This age thing seems so arbitrary. Maybe it should be tied to maturity metrics like virginity, belief in Santa Claus, preference for wine coolers over beer...

I made a few powerful enemies early on and it went downhill from there.

If only!

Age-based cutoffs for things like drinking and driving and (ahem) sex are obviously flawed and fail to take individual differences into account, but society develops these kinds of things for a reason, and IMO that reason is basic human nature. Obviously if you ask a 14-year-old if he wants to be able to drink and drive and... well, you know with impunity, he's going to say "yes," right? And you can't do thorough psychological evaluations on every one of them just for purposes like that... it's just one of those concessions to practicality and realism that make modern society what it is - a complete catastrophe to be sure, but it's a consistent catastrophe at least, for the most part.

Okay, I promise to get right on that sarcasm emoticon as soon as I finish up with my better mousetrap! Just be patient.

Well, I knew you were being sarcastic, I just don't want people to think we're completely unreasonable. Most of us do (believe it or not) recognize that there are kids under the age of 16 who are, in many (if not all) ways, more mature, sensible, and responsible than adults of all sorts of ages. That includes at least two or three who have registered WR accounts... But it's obviously a qualitative judgment, and any evidence you might find to support it in any given case might be false, etc., etc.

So true. For example im sure that Julian is not stupid enough to drink and drive. Or any of the other things mentioned above. But society seems to group all minors as being complete idiots and sex adicts that, if given a beer and car keys, would be dead by midnight. There are a lot of exeptions though. And how did this thread go from bashing me to talking about minors with beer and cars?

This is not a thread about you; this is a thread containing a couple of mentions of you, which is itself a sub-thread of a thread containing one mention of you.

This is going to sound patronizing, and it's honestly not meant to be; you might want to have more of a read around this site to get a feel for it. WR is neither a slightly-more-rowdy subforum of Wikipedia, nor the Evil Attack Site some of the WP regulars try to paint it as; it's a site dedicated to discussing ways to prevent and ways to mitigate the damage caused by the currently seriously malfunctioning Wikipedia experiment, which has gone from being a well-intentioned experiment run by a few nerds to being a source of defamation and misinformation so powerful that it's having a genuine and noticeable corrosive effect on the world's media.

One of the key issues in that is the discussion of the pros and cons of the Wikimedia Foundation's almost unique decision to allow children unrestricted access to positions of authority in which they're obliged to make serious ethical and legal decisions (often on extremely sensitive issues, such as the ethics of publishing material likely negatively to impact real-life medical diagnoses, the ethics of a charitably-funded educational institution maintaining a large-scale collection of hardcore pornography, or the appropriate way to handle defamation on a massive scale, which is beyond the ability of a rapidly shrinking volunteer group to control completely). Many people feel that people below the age of legal responsibility should not be taking decisions of this nature, and that allowing them to do so has serious moral and legal implications for the adults involved.

It's a perennial discussion, and one that's impossible to have on Wikipedia itself due to the over-zealous enforcement of the "civility policy". (Anyone questioning the status quo on Wikipedia is likely to be accused of "personal attacks", under Wikipedia's unique interpretation of the phrase, and summarily blocked). Consequently, WR is the only place where the discussion can be held reasonably in a forum read by those able to have an influence on Wikipedia itself, and you'll find that this is one of those discussions which is raised regularly here.

Despite its reputation, Wikipedia Review actually has a considerably higher level of debate than Wikipedia itself, and I for one hope you're not blocked without good cause; until the next generation of Wikipedia users, who haven't yet had time to realize the downsides of the project, get involved in the debate, then the artificial "us-and-them" mentality will continue. Just remember, this isn't Wikipedia, and differing views are allowed; just be prepared to justify any claim you make.

Well, I can see you're definitely a good fit for Wikipedia in terms of using strawman arguments, at least...


We were trying to figure out if you should be suspended for being under 16, remember?

I should say that if you are under 16, and you've said your piece already and don't intend to become a WP critic in the immediate future, the honorable & proper thing to do (as a would-be WP admin, natch) would probably be to admit it now rather than be seen as a deliberate rule-breaker - even if the rule is stupid and the site whose rule it is tends to be hostile to your overall interests. If you're 15, April isn't that far away, and I can set the suspension to end pretty much right on time.

If you're 16, then what Eva says above is far more applicable than anything I've just stated, of course.

More applicable even if you're not... you don't have to be registered to read most of the on-topic forums in any case, and if you're interested (positively ornegatively) in Wikipedia, there's good reading here.

As Somey is no doubt fed up with hearing from me, I think WR is badly damaged by allowing the nuts to post in the publicly-viewable threads; I can post "if you hate Wikipedia, WR is the place to discuss how to destroy it, and if you love Wikipedia, WR is the place to discuss how to rescue it" sermons like the ones above until the cows come home, but when people come here to see for themselves, they run into one of the usual suspects and go back thinking "yes, that reputation for being full of whackos is justified". Wikipedia has the same problem, of course, in that people only notice the problem admins and don't notice the "good" editors quietly trying to steer the trainwreck back onto the tracks (and only notice people's "problem" areas; I'm sure if you went through Slim or Shanky's Wikipedia posts, 99% would be non-controversial), but Wikipedia has the excuse of not having a viable moderation or tarpitting system to hide the nutcases from public view without blocking them altogether.

Well the question is, "are you turning 16 in April or 17?" (And did'nt it say under 13, not under 16?) You can go ahead and suspend me if you want. I have no intrest in bashing the fith most viewed site on the web. And what makes you think that Im good at strawman arrguments? What I said is true.

I explained that here, but I'd have to say you just answered the question.


You said, "society groups all minors as being complete idiots and sex adicts (sic) that, if given a beer and car keys, would be dead by midnight."

Do you really think that isn't a fairly obvious strawman argument about society's treatment of minors?

What kind of argument is that? Society, aside from a few substantial restrictions, is now quite tolerant of minors. Some people on Wikipedia believe that minors aren't suitable for adminship, but really, a few people on a website aren't representative of the real world...

Maybe my view is based off of where I live. And it was'nt an argument but a statment. Sorry if im wrong.... Im just makeing a fool of myself here. I'll stop.

In a Shaker community?


OK.

What the heck is a Shaker?

Don't stop! Hey, consider yourself at home! Consider yourself part of the family! We've taken to you so strong, it's clear we're going to get along.

Just a word of advice: don't knock Malley (he's ultra cool) and don't knock Julian (he smokes Dunhill Reds, which is also cool). If you must go on the attack, remember that there is a big fish to fry!




This is a Shaker:

I meant im going to stop makeing myself look like an idiot (If I can).

Look it up - it's not all that bad an article, really: Shakers (T-H-L-K-D)

Um...no. I don't live in a Shaker community. Just a redneck one with a touch of Northern Virginian liberalism....

That's pretty much where I'm from, but I'm willing to assume most people aren't going to view your attitudes as typical.

Still, I can see how you might cause people a certain amount of frustration. Good luck on your RfA!

Uh..was that sarcastic? Im not going up for one! I would never even nominate myself!

You do know we can read here, right?

Have you taken a look at my userpage recently?

the word on the street is that rollback is a gateway bit. just be careful human, that is all i am saying.

What?

history repeats itself unless ...

i dunno.. if we don't forget history, then are we doomed to repeat it? oh how these existential quandries...


no. be an admin! donate all your time to the Wikimedia Foundation. Do it for the poor children in Africa... do it to cure poverty, disease, and starvation. Encyc.org.

I never said that I don't want to be one. I just not aiming for it any time soon. I still have a lot of stuff to do before even being admin coached! Don't experct to see [[Wikipedia:Request for Adminship/Coldplay Expert]] to become a blue link any time soon.

lol. ok.

Three months, five at the outside...

*Sigh*. That's about as clear cut example of unconcious POV bias as one could get. Of course this being WR, rather than Wikipedia, yes, I'm being somewhat pedantic.

*sigh* Yep. Out there in the forest killing boars.

I think several people have probably already watchlisted it, for the day it DOES turn blue.

Wouldn't it be neat if you could earn Wiki-points by killing bores? Or at least shooting them? Beback would be so full of arrows he'd have to apply as WP's St. Sebastian.

Hahaha. Take a look at him getting shredded in this half-assed ANI thread he started (not that his buddies actually bothered to read his utter devastation when they started circle-jerking).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN/...f_User:SuaveArt

He's under 16 btw, and he was whining on Juliancolton's talk page that he got banned from WR for being underage but his account is still logged in (and apparently he's pissed about it.) Must seriously have no life, poor kid.

Well, who wouldn't be?

I believe the "Delete all WR cookies" link fixes that problem, but if not, I'm told that the "Delete all Coldplay MP3's from iTunes" method works equally well.

I tried listening to the first few tracks of X&Y the other day, but it seems a little less inspiring for me now, for some reason...

Poor kid, indeed. I have no idea about what he does on WP, but I got the impression that he came away from this thread thinking that he had gotten helpful advice on how to be a better Wikipedian (and future admin). I fear that he lacks the wisdom to distinguish WP from real life. That kid needs to find some better role models...