[WikiEN-l] Worthy admins? (was "The userbox fad")

[slimvirgin at gmail.com]

On 1/3/06, Chris Jenkinson <chris at starglade.org> wrote:
> jayjg wrote:
> > Here's an example of what I mean.  I noticed that a specific administrator,
> > in the last 12 hours, managed to get into a delete wheel war with another
> > admin, get himself blocked for 3RR, and then unblocked himself.  He then
> > unblocked an obvious troll, without informing the blocking admin, and
> > blocked another editor permanently, accusing him of being a sockpuppet, with
> > no evidence that I am aware of.  My curiousity piqued, I looked at his
> > recent edits, and discovered that *none* of his past 600 edits have been to
> > an article, but do find a comment he has posted today saying that Jimbo is
> > "too busy asking for money" to deal with Wikipedia issues.  I then do an
> > editcount, and discover that of his 8700 edits, only 1800 are to articles,
> > the *exact same number* of edits he has made to his User page.  I look at
> > his User page, and discover *86* user boxes on it.

> If you think he shouldn't be an admin, I invite you to file an RFAr
> about it, rather than complaining to the mailing list, which does
> nothing but create ill will amongst contributors.
>
Talrias, the point is that some editors believe there may be a problem
with the way admins are being elected, and so we are discussing the
situation in general terms, using examples (with no names) as
appropriate. If you do not believe there is a problem, you're welcome
to say so, or not to take part in the discussion, but it's perhaps
unhelpful to try to stop others from having it.

Sarah