On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 1:22 AM, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Wily D schrieb:
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 4:43 AM, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at
wrote:
Wily D schrieb:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 6:59 PM, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at
wrote:
Wily D schrieb:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 6:09 PM, Raphael Wegmann <
raphael@psi.co.at> wrote:
> 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? >
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.
You don't even consider, that an admin might do wrong, do you? Don't you think, that it's pretty easy to abuse your power, when you are judge and executor at the same time? What prevents you from calling all your opponents in content disputes wiki-lawyering trolls?
<snip/>
Nothing prevents me from making ad-hominem arguments in content disputes. Of course, that's a terrible method and I'd likely lose such a dispute, but I could do it, same as anyone from the lowliest
IP
to Jimbo Wales.
Yes, everybody can make ad-hominem arguments in content disputes, but only admins can use those attacks to evade [[WP:BLOCK]] as you suggested in your previous email.
Ad hominem arguments don't help you block anyone. There's a little link that says "block" that lets you do it - and you don't need any argument at all. But without a (community accepted) basis, it's unlikely to stand against a user who contests it civilly. The unblock mailing list, for instance, a single admin really can't control, and will investigate blocks of people who ask civilly (although I suspect the "Subject:ZOMG FUCKING CABAL!!!!1cos(0)!!!" emails don't get a fair shake).
The "community" isn't even involved in the admin-only unblock mailing list. There is no public supervision possible at all!
The unblock list is not another venue for you to fight the Muhammed images issue. You tried to turn it into one after you got blocked, and we told you politely to stop, and you kept trying to beat us over the head with it.
We are not supposed to do that, with that list, and you can't make us go there just because nobody else is listening to you at the moment. Perverting our purpose to try and force the list to become engaged in on-wiki content disputes and policy disputes is so wrong I can't describe how strongly I feel about your behavior here without crossing the line into attacking you on it.
The list is private, because some of the things that float into the inbox include personal identifying information, username to IP address correlations, and that sort of thing. Foundation privacy policy requires that type of data to be handled sensitively by trusted known users. It's not "admins-only", it's "trusted users only" and several non-admins have and continue to participate on the list.
The last time someone asked whether the list was some sort of backroom cabal, we worked with the complaintant and found an uninvolved neutral third party non-admin that was trustable, and they joined the list. Marc Riddell was that person and is still on the list, as far as I know. Marc remains a normal user, not an administrator, and is free to call the rest of the list members on it if he feels we're being an abusive cabal in private.