Zero wrote:
If there is a dispute between two or more editors,
then this
is called a "Mediation" issue and is listed on
[[Wikipedia:Requests for Mediation]]. In the case of charges
against one editor, it goes on [[Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration]].
The person or persons making the charges need not have been
involved in any direct disputation with the person they are
charging, but they might have been.
That's not how it works, or certainly not how it should. Almost every case
has two sides, both usually believing that the other is the only party at
fault. Mediation is as important in a case of "charges against one editor"
as otherwise. Although it certainly makes it difficult if one side won't
acknowledge that they might just be at fault too (and that goes for /either/
side).
In the (rarer) case that an issue is totally one sided there is still a
place for mediation, negotiation and genuine attempts to reach
understanding.
Equally, arbitration can be necessary in a dispute between two or more
editors if mediation fails. It's quite possible for the arbitration
committee to look at a case and decide both sides are at fault.
I notice you just added an example in [[Israeli West
Bank barrier]]
where your edit summary "replace image with one agreed to in
talk on 26 Jul 2004" shows your lack of integrity since two
complementary images were agreed to after a long negotiation,
and you know that. Next stunt like that and I will block you again.
As an administrator you do not have the authority to block a logged in user
except in the cases outlined in the blocking policy - which basically comes
down to instances of simple vandalism. If you follow through on this threat
I would say the other party is likely to have a good case for taking /you/
to arbitration.
--sannse