[WikiEN-l] Query admin powers

[Jens Ropers]

Nas, Fred et al.:

To my mind the disagreement at hand is mostly rooted in mutual 
misunderstanding rather than anything else.

* It occurs to me that Fred merely meant to say that this is an 
imperfect world: While preferential treatment for well-known figures or 
"old pals" may be unjust, it is also very human for people to on 
balance lean towards committing such errors -- that's just how humans 
tend to behave and Wikipedia isn't immune against it. That being a 
given, it  might turn out to be wise and/or useful to not be overly 
insistent on one's rights, but instead to voluntarily sit down in a 
lower room than one's rank would actually warrant because good things 
will happen to people who thus understate their position (cf. Bible, 
NT, Luke 14:8). Also, while a claimant may have justice on their side, 
loud screaming and complaining may -- in this imperfect world -- 
neither help their cause (however just) nor necessarily make them lots 
of friends.

* On the other hand, if Nas feels that favoritism is unacceptable as a 
matter of principle and ought to be vigorously opposed on all fronts, 
then I am very sympathetic towards that view as well.

Meanwhile, the [[Gough Whitlam]] article has been unprotected and Peter 
has indicated his willingness to talk. I think the matter is closed on 
that front.
As for resolving the remaining (IMHO) misunderstanding, maybe we can 
all agree on this:

1. Favoritism isn't nice, and if it takes place within Wikipedia that 
isn't nice either.
2. We should continue to uphold comeback mechanisms such as this 
mailing list, which will help to ensure favoritism won't get out of 
hand if it occurs.
3. If an affected person themselves (despite their right to insist on 
equal treatment) is happy to voluntarily take a backhanded approach and 
give an admin who may have overstepped their authority slightly a 
chance to realize their error and gracefully mend their ways, then 
that's all the better.
4. It's ok to informally tell someone about the utility of taking the 
backhanded approach.
5. No one should ''order'' anyone to do take this approach though, as 
such would be tantamount to confirming and codifying injustice.
6. Care should be taken to avoid a friendly hint about the utility of 
taking the backhanded approach to wrongly come across as an order to 
put up and shut up.

Sounds fair?

Oh, and Peter -- about your uncanny observation:

On 3 Jan 2005, at 18:50, Skyring wrote:
> an all-in brawl was being
> waged over the clitoris article, of all things! I hadn't imagined that
> there could be much dispute over such a thing, but there it is. As I
> hastily scurried away from the battlefield it seemed to me that all of
> the contestants were male, which perhaps says a great deal about the
> level of debate. Perhaps, as Murphy Brown once suggested, the
> participants could drop their pants, measure themselves against a
> plastic ruler, and sort out arguments that way.
>
> Which brings me back to rankism, I guess!

Well, in a word, --- BRAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHA! LOL! ROTFL! (heh! pant!) ;-D

-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]]
     www.ropersonline.com

PS: Err, Peter: Which ''measurement'' are we talking? "Flaccid" or 
"fully armed"? I think I used to have a plastic ruler there 
somewhere... Note to self: Must respond to one of them offers in me 
inbox. Want to get a good score. Anything worth doing's worth doing 
well.