On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 02:14:33AM -0800, George Herbert wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 1:22 AM, Raphael Wegmann
Wily D schrieb:
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 4:43 AM, Raphael Wegmann
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
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
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.
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.