[WikiEN-l] Query admin powers

[Ray Saintonge]

Jens Ropers wrote:

> 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.
>
In this debate I think that Fred forgot that he was walking on eggshells 
long enough to put his foot in his mouth.

The sociological phenomenon that he described is one of the pillars of 
systemic bias.  Some of us who have been here a little longer can still 
see both sides of the problem.  We need to be hesitant about using our 
seniority as an argument, but there are occasions when that can become 
necessary.  My tendency would be to reserve it for very limited 
occasions.  It needs to be applied with a much broader view in mind than 
what can be contained in a single article. 

People do develop reputations, good and bad.  It is still dangerous to 
let that reputation override a documented alternative to what the 
article already expresses.  The person with the reputation does not earn 
vacation time by virtue of that reputation.

Ec