Wily D schrieb:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 6:59 PM, Raphael Wegmann
<raphael(a)psi.co.at> wrote:
Wily D schrieb:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 6:09 PM, Raphael Wegmann
<raphael(a)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?
Sure, admins make terrible decisions all the time. I've altered at
least one admin action I've taken afterwards based on feedback from
other editors, and as recently as today I asked another admin to
reconsider his admin action, he did so and reverted his decision.
Admins are these odd creatues called "humans" that make stacks of bad
decisions.
It's easy to abuse your power when you're judge and executioner, but
admins don't really have these rolls. Anyone an admin "sentences" can
be unsentenced, anyone we "execute" can be resurrected. These actions
do happen all the time - review of administrative actions are easy to
obtain.
Correcting the "mistakes" is one thing. But what does it take
to deprive an admin of his privileges?
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.
The ArbCom has shown a willingness of late to bust
the chops of any admin who looks like they've done anything remotely
wrong, and if there were any substance to the assumptions behind these
questions one could employ it with good success.
Is there a reason you went back to subjunctive? Didn't you just say,
that admins are humans who make stacks of bad decisions?
Are the admins, who's "chops get busted" deprived of their privileges?
I've never observed anything like that. Instead my observation rather
suggest, that there usually is the sociological explainable in-group
phenomenon at play. I.e. even to my direct question, whether an admin
might do wrong, you are only willing to admit, that an admin - as every
human - does make *bad decisions*. It still wouldn't come to your mind,
that an admin might as well intentionally abuse his privileges.
--
Raphael