On 2/19/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 19/02/07, K P kpbotany@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