On 6/18/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
So, you use your judgment to make these decisions. That's valid and expected. CU status is given to those we assume to have good judgment on these sort of issues.
But it is exactly your judgment that is in question here:
You have made a logical error; just because you have questioned my judgement, it doesn't mean my judgement is in question.
With the best will in the world, I concur with him. Dropping it into the RFA was really not a very good way of going about it; there are more tactful ways of doing things that *don't* immediately spark a polarised, angry, lengthy debate, and make both sides look foolish.
But, no, we got Drama instead. Well, that was a productive use of the past couple of days for all concerned.
I agree. Jay has asked before why Charlotte didn't explain her actions privately. But the flip-side of this is the question of why didn't Jay point out the alleged policy violations privately?
If you really think the encyclopedia is harmed by someone's actions, making a mental note of those actions and then only mentioning them when the person runs for adminship does not seem at all like the proper thing to do.
Of course, the notion that the encyclopedia is harmed by Charlotte's use of proxies is silly in itself. As was mentioned previously, there are admins who have edited Wikipedia using open proxies, and at least one board member who has done so on occasion.