On 11/27/03 5:00 PM, "Andre Engels" engelsAG@t-online.de wrote:
"Ray Saintonge" saintonge@telus.net schrieb:
I suppose I should not have used the word "likely". It was just too polite. :-)
Cunc could not possibly have unblocked something without it having been blocked, but I'm sorry I keep forgetting that some people have difficulties accepting logical conclusions as evidence :-P
Sorry, but there is an important step missing in your 'logical conclusions'. Cunctator unprotected the page -> The page was protected. Correct. (after correct workding) The page was protected -> Someone protected the page. Correct (in all probability). Someone protected the page -> A sysop protected the page. Correct. A sysop protected the page -> A sysop abused their power. Nope, sorry.
General rule is that sysops should not protect pages that they are involved in. The general rule is NOT that sysops should not protect pages. If that were the rule, sysops would not have been given the possibility to protect pages in the first place.
That last line doesn't make sense. Just because a power exists does not mean it should be used as a general rule.
I believe the general rule IS that sysops should not protect pages, inasmuch as that is an extremely anti-Wiki action that prevents the majority of Wikipedians from participating in the process of contributing.
If that is not the general rule, then that would be rather upsetting.