On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 02:14:33AM -0800, George Herbert wrote:
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:
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.
As I told you on the unblock list, it has never been my intention to "fight the Muhammed images issue" on the unblock list.
In fact it was Yamla, who started with the IMHO ridiculous claim, that I'd need strong evidence that my edit was in accord with consensus, before I can change [[Muhammad]]. Where is the strong evidence, that the current state of [[Muhammad]] is in accord with consensus? In fact [[Talk:Muhammad/Images]] and the article History is a strong evidence, there is no consensus for its current state.
Where is the paragraph in [[WP:BLOCK]] that "tenditious editing" in article Talk-pages(!!) (I didn't edit any main article >24h before I was blocked) warrants a block?
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.
Well the thing is, that I've been blocked in violation of [[WP:BLOCK]], *because* the admin who blocked me, disagreed with my POV in a content dispute. I never intended to solve the content dispute on the unblock list. But I have to mention, that there *is* a content dispute, and the admin who blocked me, was engaged in 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.
That hasn't been a problem, before the unblock list was created. Private matters could still be discussed off-list.
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.
That's not what I call public scrutiny.
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.
I'm not very impressed, that there is a normal user of your choosing allowed on this list.