"JzG does not need a consensus to block, only a belief that a block is appropriate."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=206590556

Another admin explains and supports JzG's peculiar privileges on Wikipedia.

That's no peculiar privilege - that's just another example of "Wikipedia doesn't do due process".

No it is a peculiar privilege. Using similar logic, WJBscribe could have said that LHvU needs no consensus to unblock. That's a respectable vision of admin wild west egalitarianism.

Instead of saying that, WJBscribe issues a grave warning to any who would cross JzG.

JzG, it seems, is more equal than others.

How about a reasonable belief that a block is a appropriate? Appealing to Guy's beliefs would only make sense if his judgment were halfway sound, when it's so plainly not.


That might also make sense, if this were based on merit. The trouble isn't that some administrators are more equal then others, but that these more-equal administrators aren't selected by merit or for good judgment, don't enjoy the confidence of the community, and don't behave ethically or responsibly.

And there appears to be no way to remedy this situation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...or_comment/JzG2

I thought that the only thing that governored properness of a block was the blocking policy, which was derived from consensus.

The way I see it, I could block JzG right now even though I don't have a consensus and I believe it's appropriate.