Ray Saintonge wrote:
Cunc could not possibly have unblocked something
without it having
been
blocked, but I'm sorry I keep forgetting that some
people have
difficulties accepting logical conclusions as evidence :-P
My problem with this is you are suggesting that the two actions are
equivalent.
When an article has been protected, it's normally because there's been
an edit war on that article. This is normal procedure, and what seems
to have been done here.
The normal Wikipedia convention / etiquette is that then all parties to
the edit war should calm the hell down and discuss things more
rationally instead of continuing the war. It seems to be generally be
accepted protocol that at that point, none of the participants should
edit the article until an uninvolved third party decides that sensible
discourse has prevailed and unblocks the page. One of the participants
in an edit war using their sysop powers to ignore article protection has
generally been considered bad form indeed. This is what The Cunctator
has been accused of.
Certainly, others may have behaved badly -- but I don't see any signs of
anyone else doing something considered 'abuse of sysop privileges',
which is generally considered more serious than engaging in an edit war.
If you're going to allege that others have also abused their privileges,
be specific.
-Morven