Ben McIlwain wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Mark Gallagher wrote:
I agree with you both ...
Sometimes "blocking in a dispute" occurs when there's no dispute in progress. Suppose that User A repeatedly inserts a copyvio image into an article. Admin B, after giving appropriate warnings, deletes the image and blocks the user. User A then says "but Admin B was edit warring over the inclusion of the copyvio image! It's a dispute! He's not allowed to block!"
It even works if Admin C gets involved, at B's request (on ANI, or IRC, or a talkpage, or whatever). Then User A says "Admin B asked C to get involved! It's a conspiracy!" No matter what, there was no dispute, and User A is being a dick, and we shouldn't pander to him by saying "you're right, that *was* a legitimate dispute". Further, Admin B shouldn't be prevented from blocking a disruptive user simply because some smartarse decides to pick a fight and impugn her impartiality and ability to do her job.
I had a recent RFC over this actually. A user (who shall remain unnamed) was repeatedly removing or altering the image on the Jyllands-Posten article (for over a month) to the point where it was simple vandalism and it was pissing everyone off. So I blocked him for a week.
You can always assume bad faith and call it vandalism, but I clearly stated my good reasons many times on the talk page.
Then he turns around and says my block was invalid because I was previously in a dispute with him, and he dredges up an old diff.
I did not only dredge up an old diff, but I dredged up about 15 diffs, where you've repeatedly argued your POV with many editors beside myself.
And then another admin comes forward in support of the block, and he comes up with another diff where that admin reverted his vandalism to the article. This happened two more times with two more different admins stepping forward in favor of the block and he was like, "You can't, content dispute, content dispute!"
It's not my fault, that some more admins breached WP:BP#When_blocking_may_not_be_used. Btw. they did not revert my own but other editors edits and they've been engaged in the dispute on the talk page as well.
It's ridiculous. When a bunch of admins are coming forward saying you did the wrong thing, you should shut up and accept it, not dredge up various incidences when you were possibly in a dispute with that admin.
Why? Because administrators are supposed to have a last say in content disputes?
Luckily the block stood. Despite this rules-lawyering, it was clear that nobody was buying the argument that you can't block someone for very questionable edits if you happened to have interacted with them in the past.
I wonder why the policy says, that blocks to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited, when administrators are accepted to decide that a position, they disagree with, is questionable.