On 2/19/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 19/02/07, K P <kpbotany(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Administrators are complained about all the time
all over Wikipedia. If
you're not seeing it, you're making certain you aren't.
I see many complaints; how many of these are actually reasonably
substantiable is an entirely different question. Please give examples
of complaints you consider reasonable complaints and those you don't,
so I have some idea of your sensitivity level.
- d.
I think an administrator calling an editor a douche is a legitimate
complaint, the level of complaint, and the level of behaviour on the part of
an administrator that should have been a call to action by other
administrators--if it's the sort of action that could get an ordinary editor
permanently banned without ruffling many feathers at Wikipedia, and it is
done by an administrator, then it is actually reasonable, imo. However, in
this matter, until the administrator turned on me, I did think that most of
this administrator's questionable actions were simply due to his being
willing to tackle too many of the tough, long-entrenched battles of various
love-matched-in-hell editor pairs. I had to rethink this, though, once I
became the target. This administrator flouts Wikipedia policy in favor of
his own arbitrary actions designed primarily to enflame editors he disagrees
with, the policy, blocking, the flouting, ignoring Wipedia's procedures for
requesting unblocks, the enflamed, using e-mailed unblock requests to attack
and mock the editor requesting an unblock--all the sort of activity that
shouldn't be a surprise coming from an administrator with the power to call
another editor a douche without consequences. But, again, I spent time
looking around Wikipedia, following AN/I, and seeing these issues come up
again and again, an administrator acts in a manner that would get an editor
banned, and nothing is done.
What concerns me is the underlying issue, that I believe this occurs because
being an administrator is such a damned big deal, such a huge big deal, that
no one could ever risk losing it, meaning they have to, at all costs, even
to the detriment of Wikipedia, see that pretty much no one ever loses it.
I do realize, particularly after viewing the cesspool of Wikipedia from the
inside, that most of the complaints against administrators on the AN/I are
probably unfounded, but not all of them are, and there are legitimate
concerns raised there all of the time.
Let me know when you figure out which quote.
KP