Probably said by a die hard Wikipedian over at Wikipedocracy (about me!)......
For someone who claims to be a feminist, you really seem to have a problem with women. Maybe not all women. Maybe it's only women who are seen as successful on Wikipedia. Is that because Wikipedia has rejected you? You desperately yearn to be accepted there and recognized for your brilliance, You are a Wikipedia incel.
What part of this are you having trouble with? I don't want to be an armchair psychologist but I think this is obvious to everyone except maybe you.
You were rejected by Wikipedia. You wanted to be part of Wikipedia but they didn't want you. This rejection hurt you and you act out this hurt by ranting about Wikipedia and Wikipedia editors. Many of those rants contain suggestions that you would do it better. You imagine yourself to be superior than the people who rejected you and the people who succeed on Wikipedia. You did the same thing on Sucks when you were rejected by Wikipediocracy.
You're basically an incel with Wikipedia substituted for women, but since Wikipedia isn't a person you also direct your ire towards, well, women. You're pretty much just a regular incel with a very specific focus.
I was banned while drafting a reply.It's not really the same thing, You are lashing out at Wikipedia because you were rejected there. A lot of people do that. Most do it very briefly and usually just on a user talk page. You have just taken it to an extreme. You are angry at Wikipedia. I'm not assuming that you are an actual, literal incel but your contempt for women in particular is palpable.You could have simply said you think I am an incel who is annoyed the women of Wikipedia rejected him, no?
I mean, the guy is clearly off his rocker, giving even armchair psychologists a bad name. He constructed all this out of nothing. There's no evidence I focus on the women of Wikipedia in any greater volume or intensity. It's all in his warped mind.
But I clearly did something to him (her?) at some point. Something to utterly rip them from the observable universe, into a parallel universe where he doesn't need to make observations fit a theory. He just has to speak it into existence.
Fucking fruit loop.
I have no idea who they are, and they’re quite laughably claiming it doesn't matter. Like it wasn't obvious to all at that forum over the past two months, and a few years before that, that this guy is utterly obsessed with me.
They would literally just lurk, and jump into any thread, at any point, if they saw even the tiniest opportunity to make me look bad. I was once relaying a very sad story about how my cousins are under huge pressure to sexualise their navels, at a disturbingly young (pre/early pubescent) age. It felt like a helpful addition to a debate about why the Wikipedia article on Navel fetishism kept getting edited by randoms to add any old celebrity trash that would sexualize the navel using figures who are of great interest to girls that age.
The guy jumped in to insinuate I was a pedophile. Like, straight off the bat.
Tried to recover by speaking to the research I'd cited and other matters, but come on. Who was he trying to kid? He couldn't give a fuck. He was even misrepresenting that stuff, in the apparent belief people are just that stupid and can't use Ctrl+F.
It's obvious what he is doing. Obvious to everyone.
The guy isn't right in the head.
And it can't be any coincidence at all that it all happens under the nose of the far left boss of Wikipediocracy. With their apparent consent. But it's bad enough to stand out even among their constant din of random abuse.
I could get this guy fucking sectioned if he tried it in the street. I could get him Globally Banned if he tried it on Wikipedia.
Even Kiwi Farms might think he was a little bit wierd.
If I had his real name, he is DEFINITELY getting written up in the Daily Mail. Because he must be a Wikipedia editor, an active one. Perhaps a very powerful one.
