Hello, Bill Boner. Wikipedia says you were "caught cheating on [your law] school's final exam and that this would not be publicized if [you] did not apply to take the bar examination".

Where's the source? Where is that source now, I know it's got to be here somewhere, because the big warning at the top of the article says:



And that message has been there since August 2008, so certainly someone must have added this claim about cheating very recently, and it merely hasn't yet been caught by the 515 monthly page visitors.

Whoops! That bit about cheating on the law school exam has been plunked into this unsourced Wikipedia article since the day the article was created -- on September 24, 2004.

Wikipedia, I would love to help you "remove immediately" this unsourced contentious material, but one of your old gray-haired ArbCom ladies (Miss Risker) seems to have banned me from your encyclopedia project.

So, I can't help you with this problem.

Still, it was nice of you to alert Risker to this Boner.

Oh, bullshit. You know perfectly well how to create a new account, and also you know perfectly well how to edit without being an ass. You just choose not to.

Anyway, I thought you said Wikipedia was a failure? Why would you want to help something you consider a failure, something it will "always" be in your opinion?

Without taking a side in this little spat, it seems like there's no way for thekohser to do the right thing here. If he creates an account and starts editing, he's socking and violating his ban. If he doesn't, then he's shirking some kind of moral responsibility.

Of course he knows how to edit without "being an ass" but look at the fuss that happened when one of his admin accounts was discovered. Cool3 wasn't being disruptive but it was desysopped and blocked anyway, just because it was thekohser.

What is more important, a silly ban that is easy to get round or the possibility (actually, the reality) that people are currently being libeled right this minute?

Wikipedians did not like the idea that their non-existent system to prevent banned users from participating was violated, so banned Cool3 just because. This is irrelevant.

Clearly, Gregory cares about the people effected by Wikipedia, so while it is a noble idea posting here to get other people's attention, it is complete nonsense that he is unable to fix things himself. It is numerous threads like these that Greg takes the opportunity to show off his skills in sarcasm, which may even be the case here. I don't think it is very productive though. He should point the problem out, and not go on about not being able to fix it because it's a total lie.

I also choose not to wash my car with a Q-tip.

You, apparently, would be happy to do so, if the promise of a digital barnstar was in the offing.

You must have me confused with somebody who cares about barnstars, because I certainly don't.

You are pushing the idea that somebody who went after those BLPs to delete them, could somehow do it without being heavily checkusered and scrutinized? Indeed, Kevin, whose rep and record is clean as the rain waterfalls high on Mount Wai'ale'ale, is unable to make progress. What is it you expect a Kohs sock to do? Realistically?

Sarcasm comes naturally on WR, don't you know. We've been ignored far too many times on Perrential Proposals. It is not enough to state a problem and wait to see how it was dealt with. In any rational or functional organization with a quality control system, it would be. On Wikipedia, it gets nowhere. Wikipedia cares nothing about quality. The community cares about protecting their turf. Nothing is going to change in that system without major pressure from the The Top, which comes from The Outside. Which is rare.

Exactly, the minute someone else starts deleting unsourced BLPs, they are likely checkusered no matter who they appear to be. I have no doubt that Rdm2376 was checkusered to make sure that they weren't coming from a new IP range. While I don't condone sockpuppetry, I presume that having just lost one admin account, thekohser will not want to lose another one so soon. And any flurry of prods and AFDs is always treated as disruptive regardless of the legitimacy of the rationale.

We certainly can't confuse you with someone who has a clue though, can we?

Well, it appears that people do read WR after all -- based on the attention being given to the subject, Bill Boner was polished and waxed by an eager beaver admin

Of course people read Wikipedia Review. Some even post to it.

After the last few days events, I'd be surprised if there weren't a flood of account creation requests.

All the cool kids are doing it. Plus Baxter and Brandt surely are setting up more accounts here too.

Say, can the mods set up a special forum just for them?

I thought they did set up a special forum for Baxter?