On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 5:34 PM, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Wily D schrieb:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Raphael Wegmann schrieb:
David Gerard schrieb:
What you mean is "I can't get my way, no-one agrees with me and I can't produce any evidence for my assertions when called on them - It must be an ADMIN CONSPIRACY."
Do I really have to guide you to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=192159520&ol...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad/images
It happens all the time, that admins use their privileges to gain advantage in a content dispute. I complained about it many times, but no admin ever lost his admin status over it. The only reaction I usually get is: "The admin should have asked another person to do it for him."
RfCs on admins don't work either. In-groups usually defend each other against out-groups. That isn't conspiracy, it's sociology.
David Gerard schrieb:
http://www.slweekly.com/index.cfm?do=article.details&id=37C948F3-14D1-13...
Nice one to Cool Hand Luke.
That's exactly what I expected. Divert the topic when it becomes inconvenient.
-- Raphael
No offence intended, but it's hard to respond to a "All admins are abusive and powerful" without sounding smarmy.
That's not what I said.
But yes, when an admin performs the correct action in circumstances where it might've been preferable they let someone else do it, what should anyone do about it, beyond say something to the admin in question? If we start discipling admins for taking correct actions too often, soon they'll be nobody around to keep order & do housekeeping.
That's an interesting answer. Are you saying that violating policy is the right action for admins?
-- Raphael
The short answer is "Policy does not work that way" - the longer answer is "Even if policy did work that way, it's allowed by policy (i.e. [[WP:IAR]])". WP:PROT also reads "Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page for this reason if they are in any way involved in the dispute." which grammatically means Admins are allowed to protect or unprotect pages when they're involved in a dispute, it's simply discouraged. If it was supposed to be forbidden it would read "Administrators may not protect or unprotect a page for this reason if they are in any way involved in the dispute." which would forbid it. The reality is that if you're involved, you're less likely to take the correct action and need to be extra diligent.
In short, they're not violating policy.
Cheers WilyD