james-
Erik, /you/ way overstepped the mark. 172 acted to stop an edit war through protecting a page, a page he had not contributed one word to but which one user was attempting to put an incoherent POV anti-catholic ramble.
I believe 172 acted in good faith. I never said that he did not. I also think that because of the very strong POV he expressed prior to protecting the page, he was not the right person to do so.
It may well have been inadvisable to for /him/ to do that, but he was dealing with an impossible situation, where there were calls for someone /urgently/ to act
Oh, come on. It's not like something could have been permanently broken. In fact, this wasn't even an edit war in the traditional sense -- edits were changed from one revision to the other, instead of alternating between two versions. Even if it was urgent (which it wasn't), 172 could have asked another sysop to do it -- we have 100 administrators on the English wiki.
- treating a user who acted in good faith in an emergency circumstances as
if he was the guilty one when he believed he had the support of people like Mav in his actions?
I don't remember having treated 172 as "guilty". The problem is that 172 did not acknowledge our policies after I asked him to do so, and did not want to work within that framework. If he had said "OK, next time I'll ask another sysop", I would not have said another peep on the matter.
- For continually ignoring his attempts to clarify the matter?
How so?
- For /you/ then leaving a sensitive page on which there was an edit war,
wide open to more heavy POVing for someone who openly admits his anti-catholic agenda, including making comments that maybe catholics want their children abused?
I feel that Nostrum can be worked with instead of immediately isolating him. You will be able to quote lots of silly things Nostrum said, but these have to be viewed in context -- he was reacting in a situation where he was literally showered with insults. I don't think he was treated fairly in this whole affair.
Regards,
Erik