Ray Saintonge wrote:
Cunc could not possibly have unblocked something without it having
been
blocked, but I'm sorry I keep forgetting that some people have difficulties accepting logical conclusions as evidence :-P
My problem with this is you are suggesting that the two actions are equivalent.
When an article has been protected, it's normally because there's been an edit war on that article. This is normal procedure, and what seems to have been done here.
The normal Wikipedia convention / etiquette is that then all parties to the edit war should calm the hell down and discuss things more rationally instead of continuing the war. It seems to be generally be accepted protocol that at that point, none of the participants should edit the article until an uninvolved third party decides that sensible discourse has prevailed and unblocks the page. One of the participants in an edit war using their sysop powers to ignore article protection has generally been considered bad form indeed. This is what The Cunctator has been accused of.
Certainly, others may have behaved badly -- but I don't see any signs of anyone else doing something considered 'abuse of sysop privileges', which is generally considered more serious than engaging in an edit war.
If you're going to allege that others have also abused their privileges, be specific.
-Morven