>For me, the use in discussion was one thing, but the use to edit war
>over a contentious link went over the line. Others may disagree.
>-Matt
I think it's fine to consider, in the abstract, what sort of rules
avowed sock puppets should be governed by. If there's a general
agreement that PM stepped over a line, the answer is to tell him where
the line is, ask him to respect it, and to only begin to consider
blocking after that.
Instead, we have pretty much every possible mistake an admin could make:
* Admin was personally involved in past disputes with user
* Admin was currently involved in content dispute with user
* Admin didn't warn whatsoever, just jumped straight to block
* Admin didn't block for a reasonable period of time, just jumped
straight to indef.
* Admin is still calling for indef block to be reinstated even after
user has agreed to stop behavior.
Even if PM did unknowingly cross some unseen line-- how is NOT an
example of an admin doing everything wrong?
--
I have to say, emotionally speaking, I do start to feel a twinge of a
double standard when it comes to how rules are enforced. For a time
there, it looked like the pro-badsites people were completely exempt
from NPA. It claims "some types of comment are never acceptable--
Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting
their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream
or extreme." Now I bet I could find 500 diffs in which someone
affiliation or alleged affiliation was used to attack them, but I
don't think a single block was ever issued.
On edit warring-- we had an editor, who had a long history of problem
behavior, reinsert the SAME disputed text, into a POLICY, repeat the
behavior TWELVE TIMES, AGAINST consensus, slinging personal attacks
as fast as he could type them, and a 72 hr block was overturned
within minutes as too harsh.
Meanwhile, As far as I can tell, Private Musings has truly, in good
faith, worked his hardest to comply with the rules. He's been honest,
upfront, and polite. And his actions have been under a constant
microscope, and the first excuse someone can find, he's indefinitely
blocked. His crime: four edits, over three days, reverting
vandalism by the sockpuppet of a banned user, and buttressed by a
strong consensus on the talk pages.
--
I realize there are lots of intervening factors. High edit counts can
and should translate into judicial leniency. "Stop the evil, bad
people who want to hurt us" is always going to be an easier rallying
cry than "Lets stop and consider the principles of this situation".
But emotionally speaking, PM's block makes me feel like there's two
different sets of rules-- rules for the "US"es and the rules for
"THEMS". If one of US edit wars against consensus on a policy page
twelve times while violating NPA with practically every edit summary--
well, I'm sure he just got a little overheated. Blocks are
preventative. He's learned his lesson.
If one of "THEM" makes four reverts, good reverts, but inadvertantly
crossing a line ever so slightly-- well, let's take the opportunity
to just get rid of them them.
Maybe that logic holds up when the only people we call "THEM" are
people who are truly just trying to cause trouble-- but I know I'm a
THEM. PM is a THEM. Dan T is a THEM.
Perhaps none of this is true-- i leave that possibility completely
open. Maybe from the proper perspective, I could see a consistent
set of rule are being applied to everyone. I'm not objective, so it's
totally plausible.
BUT-- from where I sit, it definitely feels like MONGO and JZG can
pretty much slug away at us anti-BADSITES people as much as they
want, but if PM gets uppity and decides he'd like to edit instead of
just talking, he's outta here.
Just a subjective observation of what it feels like to be on this side
of the univese. Take it or leave it.
Alec