On 1/4/06, Chris Jenkinson <chris(a)starglade.org> wrote:
jayjg wrote:
Thank you Ray, that's exactly the spirit in
which I intended it, and the
reason I did not name the individual in question.
I know you didn't, but the details were so specific it was immediately
clear to me (and others) who you were talking about. I just didn't find
the not-quite-naming and shaming helpful.
I'm sure a small number of people who were aware of the specific incidents
knew which individual I was referring to, but that's hardly the point. Most
of these discussions involve a lot of hand-waving arguments, people making
claims with no concrete examples. Rather than doing the same, I provided a
live and relevant example of the issues I was raising. And to remind
everyone, the issue raised was not about whether or not one particular admin
was behaving badly, but more broadly whether people are becoming involved in
Wikipedia (and even becoming admins) without any familiarity with its norms
or committment to its goals. When one notices that an administrator is
behaving quite badly, and then realizes that fewer than 1/4 of his edits are
actually to articles, and that he has as many edits to his user page as he
has to all encyclopedia articles combined, these issues are highlighted
starkly.
Jay.