Ray Saintonge wrote
That sounds like a good way of validating everything he has been saying.
Well, no, he has been posting some very wild and generalized claims. He has been playing the 'how can I be a troll, look at how provocative my posts are?' card. He has bad netiquette. He is claiming admin status, while not being transparent about his identity on the site. He has been personalising the discussion, in dealing with David Gerard. The 'in sorrow, not in anger' doesn't convince me, anyway.
The actual content (I think) boils down to one concrete claim of observed admin misbehaviour. This took a _large_ number of posts to extract. Voluminous claims look a bit less impressive in the light of what has actually come out.
I don't know about you, but I have met this profile before, and the very best thing about it is having time on his hands.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
On 10/8/06, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote
That sounds like a good way of validating everything he has been saying.
Well, no, he has been posting some very wild and generalized claims.
Wild? No. Generalized? In asserting that there are too many admins who have lost sight of civility and AGF, perhaps.
He has been playing the 'how can I be a troll, look at how provocative my
posts are?' card.
Sigh. Is everything a game to you?
He has bad netiquette.
I made a mistake. I apologized for it, more than once. I have no control over your refusal to take an apology seriously.
He is claiming admin status, while not being transparent about his identity
on the site.
And I explained why.
He has been personalising the discussion, in dealing with David Gerard.
David's action that I questioned was only the most recent example. And I will make no apologies for questioning a user's conduct, because we are supposed to question conduct that we don't agree with.
The 'in sorrow, not in anger' doesn't convince me, anyway.
If you are determined to be closed-minded, I can certainly filter your posts and speak instead with those who are going to be serious.
The actual content (I think) boils down to one concrete claim of observed
admin misbehaviour.
No, there are a large number of times I've witnessed this sort of behavior since I've been at wikipedia.
This took a _large_ number of posts to extract.
Actually, I emailed out one example so far to the list, and I sent a different example directly to Jimbo. Jimbo gave me an indication he preferred to keep our discussion private, so that won't be sent to the list until he either does it himself or tells me to go ahead and do it.
Voluminous claims look a bit less impressive in the light of what has
actually come out.I don't know about you, but I have met this profile before, and the very best thing about it is having time on his hands.
You're spending a lot of time attacking the messenger. In my experience, the only time people do that is when they are afraid of the message.
Charles
Parker
P.S. Take a chill pill, ok?
Parker Peters wrote:
David's action that I questioned was only the most recent example. And I will make no apologies for questioning a user's conduct, because we are supposed to question conduct that we don't agree with.
My own complaint about the David reference had nothing to do with the specific differences. It's really a problem with examples generally.
When one undertakes to talk about a serious problem and uses a reference to an incident with a specific person, an unfortunately large proportion of readers will glom onto the personal reference and talk about it to the exclusion of the point one is trying to make.
Ec