[WikiEN-l] BLPs in the papers

[Raphael Wegmann]

Wily D schrieb:
> 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/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=192159520&oldid=192136846
>>   > 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.
>>
>>  --
>>  Raphael
> 
> No offence intended, but it's hard to respond to a "All admins are
> abusive and powerful" without sounding smarmy.

That's not what I said.

> 
> 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
> housekeeping.
> 

That's an interesting answer. Are you saying that violating policy
is the right action for admins?

-- 
Raphael