[WikiEN-l] BLPs in the papers
wilydoppelganger at gmail.com
Wed Feb 20 22:18:09 UTC 2008
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Raphael Wegmann <raphael at psi.co.at> wrote:
> Raphael Wegmann schrieb:
> > David Gerard schrieb:
> >> 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/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.
> David Gerard schrieb:
> > http://www.slweekly.com/index.cfm?do=article.details&id=37C948F3-14D1-13A2-9FB530596FADE2A6
> > Nice one to Cool Hand Luke.
> That's exactly what I expected.
> Divert the topic when it becomes inconvenient.
No offence intended, but it's hard to respond to a "All admins are
abusive and powerful" without sounding smarmy. I typed about three
responses before I said to myself "fuck it, these are all inflammatory
But yes, when an admin performs the correct action in circumstances
where it might've been preferable they let someone else do it, what
should anyone do about it, beyond say something to the admin in
question? If we start discipling admins for taking correct actions
too often, soon they'll be nobody around to keep order & do
More information about the WikiEN-l