Board Thread:False Info and Speculative Discussion/@comment-27547895-20160201202203/@comment-27547895-20160211190540

Maria Trimble wrote:

Grahamburglar wrote: I said all of that before, Maria. But I still don't see the downside in having someone the community selects, especially since you have your education to focus on and that (obviously) needs to come first. Yes, I noticed that. However, my post was directed mainly at HolyDrumstick and I would really appreciate a response from him. The downside of having an admin that is appointed by the community is that the users here have a tendency to act irrationally and emotionally. I've seen cases, not just here but in other wikis, where people only appoint those who they know is a pushover, for lack of a better term, and will give them everything they ask for, regardless of if it's for the best or not. There was an incident a few years ago where people were demanding that Paul appoint a specific user (I can't remember the exact user name at the moment) because they mouthed off to Paul (unnecessarily) and demanded things that sounded ideal for someone who didn't have to run this wiki (such as allowing everyone to contribute regardless of the accuracy and necessity of the edit). They wanted someone to be their friend and kiss their ass, not do what is right for this wiki.

HolyDrumstick, you may not like the way Paul runs this wiki but I can assure, the harder Paul was on people, the more accurate and brilliant the pages were. As Jestermonkey4u stated, it's all about the accuracy of the posts. No one is going to visit a wiki that has incorrect information in the pages. Honestly, by the tone and word choice of your posts, you sound very hostile and bitter, in my opinion. I'm sorry to say that but you are sounding like a scorned child. Maria, we simply see things differently.

I've debated until I'm blue in the face, I don't see any positive result from debating with someone who simply misinterprets almost everything I've said, and if you truly want to understand my position, please read everything I've posted.

As far as being a scorned child. I've already posted my old account. Something like four times, already. I was not problematic then, nor am I trying to be problematic now. There's actually no "scorn" directed towards me from anyone, until I started this.

Nor have I trolled or  been banned. I have not had any posts deleted (prior this post) for about two years. So, there's that.

Here's the way I see things. This is a very polarizing discussion. While I opened it with praise for all the good Paul's done, much of this has been a discussion of our disappointments with Paul. However, I've never held any radical position, such as suggesting that Paul step down. Yet, here I am, being painted as if I had by people who support Paul.

There's nothing wrong with supporting Paul... I get it, he does a ton of good. However, there's also no justification for painting me into a villain I am not, just because you disagree with my much less extreme position.

Baseless insults such as "scorned child" only cause more animosity. And, yes, I've argued with Paul. I've even pointed out that his refusal to admit fault is childish. But, I've always made clear exactly what behavior was problematic... while praising his value... rather than simply insulting him entirely.

I'm truly sorry that I've got you so twisted about this... but, I really can't take you too seriously, given the bulk of your statements demonize me in ways that aren't reflected in anything I've said.

Good luck in school.

Cheers.