On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 6:09 PM, Raphael Wegmann <raphael(a)psi.co.at> wrote:
Wily D schrieb:
The short answer is "Policy does not work
that way" - the longer
answer is "Even if policy did work that way, it's allowed by policy
(i.e. [[WP:IAR]])". WP:PROT also reads "Administrators should not
protect or unprotect a page for this reason if they are in any way
involved in the dispute." which grammatically means Admins are allowed
to protect or unprotect pages when they're involved in a dispute, it's
simply discouraged. If it was supposed to be forbidden it would read
"Administrators may not protect or unprotect a page for this reason if
they are in any way involved in the dispute." which would forbid it.
The reality is that if you're involved, you're less likely to take the
correct action and need to be extra diligent.
In short, they're not violating policy.
How about WP:BLOCK?
"Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a
content dispute."
Is it still "correct action" if they do?
--
Raphael
One, of course, still has the legs of IAR, the general principle of
"no lawyering" and so forth to stand on from time to time, but in
general no. Of course "content dispute" is a nebulous term, and oft
times overly broadly defined by those who're misbehaving - if you
removing trolling, for instance, the person trolling will inevitably
claim they're in a content dispute with you, which is simply not true.
But if they make a correct block in that situation, what is it you're
hoping someone else would do? Unblock then reblock? In an "all
volunteer" justice system, it's hard to get people roused about
technicalities when justive has been done.
Cheers
WilyD