David Gerard schrieb:
On 20/02/2008, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Not sure and not interested to find out. I consider that to be the biggest problem of Wikipedia. Admins are the untouchable inside group, who can violate policy as they please. They are not accountable and hardly ever loose their administrator privileges.
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.