On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 5:34 PM, Raphael Wegmann <raphael(a)psi.co.at> wrote:
Wily D schrieb:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Raphael Wegmann
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:
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:
That's exactly what I expected.
Divert the topic when it becomes inconvenient.
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
That's an interesting answer. Are you saying that violating policy
is the right action for admins?
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.