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