Like MONGO, I find all these criticisms of William highly problematic. As we can all see here, the fact that we have an expert editor with William's character h
Like MONGO, I find all these criticisms of William highly problematic. As we can all see here, the fact that we have an expert editor with William's character here is not a coincidence. What happened was that Wikipedia more or less selected someone like William to come edit here at a time when people like Ed Poor and SEWilco were heavily involved here. Had William not been like the William we all know, then either someone else would have stepped in at that time who was like the William we know, or the article would have stayed a bad article for quite some years, severely compromizing Wikipedia's reputation as a reliable source.
In the PD, ArbCom mentions that there are other expert editors who are not like William, but they forget that they mostly came here much later when things had changed here quite a lot. And William has in fact adapted quite a lot to the Wikipedia of today. Only very infrequently when someone behaves in the prehistoric-Wiki way, William may respond in an effective way similar to what was effective back then. Examples are the way William has dealt with ZuluPapa5 and the fact that William refused to compromize on inserting comments in edits on his talk page. Had an issue like the latter one flared up in 2004 when I joined Wikipedia, or even as late as 2008, the Admin would likely have been reprimanded or desysopped.
To topic ban William from CC articles is like putting a dog who guarded your house for years to sleep because you now have an electric fence and the dog, while very friendly, very occasionally barks.
Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.