G'day Steve,
On 5/19/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
This rule is not that clear cut. A quarrelsome user cannot by picking petty quarrels thus insulate themselves from administrative action. The dispute must have been substantial and the block is good in any event. Treating it as a "non-negotiable directive" is inappropriate. It is more an action which can get you into trouble and possibly lead to loss of administrative status in egregious and repeated cases.
In such cases could the admin leave a message at AN/I and wait for someone else to carry out the block (usual complaints of ganging up aside...)
Also, there's a difference between "picking a petty quarrel" and actually succeeding in starting an argument. See the Monty Python sketch, "I'm not arguing with you", "Yes you are!"...
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.