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.

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!)

By the way, Ktr101 is also on Facebook. The kid needs to spend more quality time at Popeye's Fried Chicken!

Ah the joys of Facebook privacy:

Kevin only shares some of his Profile information with everyone.

I have removed the information after a polite request from Kevin. This information contained a significant number of personal details, and several quotes of dubious taste that suggested a lack of appropriate judgement. Kevin has appropriately modified his Facebook profile. DB

Oppose. Too many heterosexual admins.

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

Us, too!



If you don't want everyone in the universe to know it about you, don't put it on the internet.™

A great argument you guys are, for anonymity here.

Don't even think about giving up your anonymity here. It's a pseud paradise.

If he had intended for it to be private, he shouldn't have put it into Facebook. Duh.

Second. Obviously you objectors must have your own Facebooks, and you don't realize how bad
Facebook actually is when it comes to "privacy". You (and a long list of other Wikipedians) are
damned fools.

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.

A lot of people on Facebook have a love-hate relationship with privacy issues.

Interesting range of opposers. Where else will you see agreement between Sarah, our own Abd, NW and Cirt? Sarah is one of the best admins going and not to be confused with other admins who may or may not have a similar name. I doubt that I need comment on the others!

I thought this bloke was already an admin?


(emphasis on the "teenager admins" part mine)

Except he looks more like Randy Van Warmer (with a crew cut).

I can't agree about Sarah -- I've found her to be vindictive and, sadly, rather stupid -- and Cirt has no credibility. But kudos to Abd, who pretty much nailed the coffin in a precise and clearly-defined manner.

At this point, the Good Ship Rutherford has taken on too much water. If the kid was smart, he'd get off while he can and come back next year.

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.

The only person who would possible increase WP's stature is Stephen Hawking, but he's now chasing UFOs.



Yes, but for too many Wikipedians, the tools represent the only genuine accomplishment they can boast about.

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.

It seems more than a little apparent that what is really in play here is your own blind and completely uncritical devotion to Wikipedia, including its mad "WP:OUT" rule, which on its face absolutely prohibits the posting of personal information on Wikipedia concerning another user, even when that other user has posted the exact same information about themself on another website. You also appear to fully buy into the Frei Kultur Kinder belief that the rules of Wikipedia (such as they are) should have full application throughout the entire universe. "Immoral posting of personal information" indeed!

So, KTR is still holding on despite a very obvious failure? Boy, what a glutton for punishment.

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.

I don't know if wikipedia is salvageable or not; on balance I'd say not. What I'm more certain of though is that well-meaning but misguided kids like Ktr are part of the problem, not part of the solution.


That train has very definitely crashed, big time.

Yes, we are, aren't we? If you're going to criticize the establishment or make some rhetorical argument that you'd like divorced from your persona, you'd better pick some nom-de-plume (nom-de-guerre) like "Silence Dogood" or "Voltare" or "Mark Twain" or "Publius" or something. Everybody will eventually find out who you are historically, but meanwhile you can keep from distracting them.

But, on the other hand, these are not names you'd want to have on a reference work, such as an encylopedia. Are they?

P.S. One assumes from the username that Mr. Rutherford's middle initial must be "T". Little facts, little facts. Always gathering little facts.

It's Thomas. And his long jump is apparently 12 ft., 1 in.

Wow. That's a big one.

Yes, I see him in Barnstable High School class of 2009. How sweet. If only it were a junior high graduation, we could put him to editing and dumbing down the WP cancer articles.


http://www.barnstablepatriot.com/home2/ind...k=view&id=18184

I could jump longer if I knew you were there to catch me when I came down. (Ooooo, mama, open your arms for Horsey!)

As for poor KTR - will someone fetch a crat (there should be one laying about somewhere) and shut down that fiasco?

The rules of engagement at RfA are that the victim has to ask for the torture to be ended.

But suppose he or she is incapacitated?

Is that a euphemism?

It seems wee Julian was taken away from his home schooling (cough cough) to close the RfA.

Oh well, another KTR failure. And kudos to Randy for putting the kid through the meat grinder.

I've said before that nominators should think a little more about their nominees, and a liitle less about themselves.

Here is a fun idea: no more nominators. If you want adminship, you have to step forward on your own and not fish around for someone to nominate you. It would cut down on the BS surrounding the process.

That would exclude all but the most arrogant of candidates, whom the process already heavily favors.

Those in the best position confront bullshit would be the bureaucrats, but I fear they lack the sense and/or the will to do anything like that.

I favor randomly awarding adminship to one in every two thousand users registered more than one year with more than 5,000 article edits and no block log entries during the previous 180 days, expiring in one year.

And how many more edits do you have to make before they let you out of it?

Let me see: four times five is twelve, and four times six is thirteen, and four times seven is -- oh dear! I shall never get to twenty at that rate!

And it had ended, unfortunately, with another Ktr101 RFA failure.

You overestimate the size of the project. It would require 4,000,000 editors with more than 5,000 edits to arrive at the current 2,000 admins. They simply don't exist in those numbers. It is off by the order of at least two magnitudes.

No kidding. The "top 4000" editors only goes down to about 10,000 edits, and presumably many of these do not even meet the proposed criteria (of >5000 article edits). Zoloft's definition virtually assures less than a dozen admins would be on the site. No matter how corrupt the one believes the admin corp is, that's clearly too few.

Maybe Zoloft can clarify his proposal. However, I did not read it as you do. It is not saying that all admins should be appointed by this mechanism. It looks like a suggestion that a limited number of extra admins could be appointed thus. If so, it's not a bad idea and would help to confirm the famous mantra that becoming an admin is no big deal.

By making adminship a lottery prize awarded to people with 5000 article edits?

Well, it's better than having no chance at all.

The numbers can be recrunched.

It's the mechanism I was proposing.

And yes, as extra temporary admins, and in the order of about 100 selected.