 |
||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
| Wikipedia: still filled with transparent scumbags by Ice Cream Jonsey 12/23/2016, 8:26am PST | ||||
 |
 |
|||
| Go ahead and read this for the laughs. It goes as you'd expect.
To sum up: - User sees the page had been set to a redirect, no explanation whatsoever. Undoes it. - Person reverts them. - User sets it back and says they are going to add citations. - Other person nominates it for deletion. - Over the course of a week, 60 cites are added according to their criteria, civil discussion (though the nominating editor makes a laughable bad assertion, the only truly stupid thing said) nothing but keep votes (and a "wait") ... so the nominating editor starts a witch hunt for "sock puppets," but can't find any. -10 minutes before it closes, one dickfuck makes a false accusation of canvassing, nominating weasel editor wipes the grease from his fat face and chimes in and the "closing" editor sides with one guy 10 minutes before closing, rather than the week's worth of discussion and work. Because that's how civilized society decides on something. One guy ignoring everyone else to side with a baseless accusation from some rando chump and then closing everything off so there can't be any dissent. Talking to some friends in the know, it is absolutely intentional for a guy to show up at the end and make the one claim that nobody else did and then have the closing editor side with him. They really are the fucking worst. ICJ |
||||
 |
 |
|||
|
Wikipedia: still filled with transparent scumbags by 12/23/2016, 8:26am PST  A smudge on the chip! Clearly this submission is invalid NT by 12/23/2016, 9:28am PST That Czar guy created the Tim Rogers article over there. by 12/23/2016, 4:56pm PST Fucking fuck by 12/23/2016, 9:31pm PST ahahaa by 01/06/2017, 12:36pm PST Bets on how many locks of Tim's hair he has by 06/27/2017, 9:39pm PDT Re: Wikipedia: still filled with transparent scumbags by 12/26/2016, 12:51am PST Just saw this, and it's amazing. by 06/27/2017, 9:05pm PDT |
