"Resid Gulerdem" wrote
Some people feel marginalized and faced to bias actions from some admins. Isn't this important enough to address? The answer to the question is strongly related to the strategic call of being inclusive or exclusive.
There has never been a shortage of criticism of certain admin actions. A high proportion of this has always been mud-slinging by those rightly the target of admin sanctions.
The issue of 'bias' is better phrased another way. Do admins apply admin powers in attempts to control article content, in a way that is negative from the point of view of compliance with fundamental policies on content? It turns out that it is much harder to make a good case of this kind, than to make general accusations on 'bias'. (I was accused myself like this last week.) Admin action is there to defend the project, and you have to look at the effects in particular with respect to NPOV.
It is of course not ruled out that admins make mistakes (it happens often). Usually, though, our admins understand the policies much better than their accusers, and are not the ones trying to game the system, or apply 'wikilawyer' tactics against the spirit of policy.
Charles