Mark Ryan wrote:
On 20/02/07, MacGyverMagic wrote:
I'm with Oskar. If they call various administrators abusive they should be able to back that up. Of course, the smarter response is to talk it out with the admin in question so it doesn't come to such accusations.
Mgm
Ah, but the emails in question contained diffs which they claimed shewed that the administrators in question were "abusive". Should those have been let through?
For me it's clearly yes. The diffs are a key positive factor.
Simply calling an admin abusive should not be a serious factor, nor should failing to discern the subtlety between an abusive admin and an abusive action. I think that very few people would make that distinction. Relevance is more important. A claim of admin abuse is specifically about what the admin does in Wikipedia, and is thus relevant. If the claimant enters into all manner of claims about the admin's personal morals, paternity or sexual preferences that would clearly be beyond our control, and would fail the relevance test.
Ec