Tue 1st June 2010, 5:31pm
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.