On 6/17/07, Joe Szilagyi <szilagyi(a)gmail.com> wrote: Joe, the elephant in the room is you, blundering through wikien-l ranting about various conspiracies and cabals, and inventing your own policies and claiming them as Wikipedia's. There's a reason you and your sockpuppets were permanently banned from Wikipedia.

Joe Szilagyi wrote: I've certainly noticed that some admins are weaker at following policy than they are at enforcing it. And it certainly does sometimes seem that admins back each other up a smidge too readily, and give each other the benefit of the doubt, when cries are raised that they've misbehaved. I observe this most often with respect to WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE. Some admins know that they know these policies, and know that they're following them, and so don't realize that they aren't. Typical scenario: innocent newbie does something wrong and is told so by an admin. Newbie interprets blunt statement of fact as a scolding, and says so. Admin and/or fellow admin says, no little newbie, don't take that as a personal attack, admin was just letting you know how we do things here, this is the internet, and you might need a thicker skin if you're going to edit here, people seem blunt sometimes. Newbie doesn't quite get the point, and does the same wrong thing again. Admin reverts newbie. Newbie complains, mentioning word "vandalism" in conjunction with admin. Admin promptly blocks newbie for two hours, under WP:NPA, to "cool off", directing newbie not to call admin a vandal again. But with that said, I hasten to add that most of the time I've observed this sort of thing, the admins in question really *were* acting with the best interests of the project at heart. That is, the net result of their indiscretions is usually not that the project is directly harmed, but rather, that new editors are given too many opportunities to conclude (based on the evidence they've seen) that there's a cabal of administrators ganging up on and/or conspiring against them.