The comments weren't awful. It was really a bad judgement call because it violated the principle "don't be disruptive to make a point", which I really didn't consider very clearly before doing it.
The reason I was annoyed about it was because signatures are the way you see who is saying something in a conversation thread. Back then you'd click on the person's username and get easy access to their pages, talk page, block links, contributions, etc. it also made it really hard to see what they had contributed. I was also concerned that someone would go what I in essence did - which was a really dumb move on my part, like I say.
You'll have to forgive me, because even after you explained it, I still don't understand.
If someone has a link in their signature pointing to an unassigned user name, then grabbing that username could also be interpreted at plugging a security hole as a stop gap measure while the problem is being discussed.
I don't see how it's outrageous. I don't see how you overstepped your bounds.
I think the context is important (it's hard to dig up the edit history for so long ago). I actually was in the wrong about the way I went about things - it was being debated and I really did try to prove a point (though it never occurred to me that I was being disruptive).
The editor in question quite possibly had good intentions, or didn't see anything wrong with what they did. Whilst I was not a malicious actor, there was debate about the situation and I think people objected more to the way I went about proving the point I was making (which I maintain was valid). That's a fair cop, and I accept my action was rash.
Are 'admins' on wikipedia more like 'moderators' than actual admins? The word admin to me makes me think of someone who runs something and makes the rules, not always being held to them themselves.
It's been a long time since I participated. But admins, at the time, weren't meant to be anything more that editors with some special tools. Those tools require good judgement, unfortunately good judgement is not something any of exhibit 100% of the time, especially if you need to show it every day.
Meta-Wikipedia is where the toxic parts are. Admins are an easy target and sometimes people get swept up in bashing. Read ANI today and you can see similar things occasionally.
The reason I was annoyed about it was because signatures are the way you see who is saying something in a conversation thread. Back then you'd click on the person's username and get easy access to their pages, talk page, block links, contributions, etc. it also made it really hard to see what they had contributed. I was also concerned that someone would go what I in essence did - which was a really dumb move on my part, like I say.