On 1/4/06, Chris Jenkinson chris@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.