G'day Steve,
On 5/19/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)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.
--
Mark Gallagher
"What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.6.1/343 - Release Date: 18/05/2006