Hello,
I think we need some mechanism to impress it upon admins that it is not okay under any circumstances to block users you have been involved in a dispute with. It's currently treated as something optional by some admins. Usually the blocks they make are justified, but surely posting to AN/I is a better idea? IMO, This needs to be a non-negotiable directive, DO NOT BLOCK A USER YOU ARE ENGAGED IN A DISPUTE WITH, no matter how obviously the block is needed. This will save a lot of rants and hurt feelings.
Molu
--------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.
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.
Fred
On May 19, 2006, at 4:49 AM, Molu wrote:
Hello,
I think we need some mechanism to impress it upon admins that it is not okay under any circumstances to block users you have been involved in a dispute with. It's currently treated as something optional by some admins. Usually the blocks they make are justified, but surely posting to AN/I is a better idea? IMO, This needs to be a non-negotiable directive, DO NOT BLOCK A USER YOU ARE ENGAGED IN A DISPUTE WITH, no matter how obviously the block is needed. This will save a lot of rants and hurt feelings.
Molu
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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!"...
Steve
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.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Mark Gallagher wrote:
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.
I had a recent RFC over this actually. A user (who shall remain unnamed) was repeatedly removing or altering the image on the Jyllands-Posten article (for over a month) to the point where it was simple vandalism and it was pissing everyone off. So I blocked him for a week.
Then he turns around and says my block was invalid because I was previously in a dispute with him, and he dredges up an old diff. And then another admin comes forward in support of the block, and he comes up with another diff where that admin reverted his vandalism to the article. This happened two more times with two more different admins stepping forward in favor of the block and he was like, "You can't, content dispute, content dispute!"
It's ridiculous. When a bunch of admins are coming forward saying you did the wrong thing, you should shut up and accept it, not dredge up various incidences when you were possibly in a dispute with that admin.
Luckily the block stood. Despite this rules-lawyering, it was clear that nobody was buying the argument that you can't block someone for very questionable edits if you happened to have interacted with them in the past.
- -- Ben McIlwain ("Cyde Weys")
~ Sub veste quisque nudus est ~
I agree with Fred's cautious approach. Our written policy puts it nicely, I think: you shouldn't use blocking *to gain an advantage in a content dispute*. But if for instance someone is doing something disruptive and disputes your warning that it's disruptive, while this might be a good case for a second opinion it doesn't mean that you shouldn't go and carry out your warning. We certainly don't want to move to a blanket ban on blocking in cases of dispute, and we don't want to give the miscreant a tool to whack the administrator over the head (as had unfortunately occurred in a recent case involving someone blocked for multiple personal attacks).
Ben McIlwain wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Mark Gallagher wrote:
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.
I had a recent RFC over this actually. A user (who shall remain unnamed) was repeatedly removing or altering the image on the Jyllands-Posten article (for over a month) to the point where it was simple vandalism and it was pissing everyone off. So I blocked him for a week.
You can always assume bad faith and call it vandalism, but I clearly stated my good reasons many times on the talk page.
Then he turns around and says my block was invalid because I was previously in a dispute with him, and he dredges up an old diff.
I did not only dredge up an old diff, but I dredged up about 15 diffs, where you've repeatedly argued your POV with many editors beside myself.
And then another admin comes forward in support of the block, and he comes up with another diff where that admin reverted his vandalism to the article. This happened two more times with two more different admins stepping forward in favor of the block and he was like, "You can't, content dispute, content dispute!"
It's not my fault, that some more admins breached WP:BP#When_blocking_may_not_be_used. Btw. they did not revert my own but other editors edits and they've been engaged in the dispute on the talk page as well.
It's ridiculous. When a bunch of admins are coming forward saying you did the wrong thing, you should shut up and accept it, not dredge up various incidences when you were possibly in a dispute with that admin.
Why? Because administrators are supposed to have a last say in content disputes?
Luckily the block stood. Despite this rules-lawyering, it was clear that nobody was buying the argument that you can't block someone for very questionable edits if you happened to have interacted with them in the past.
I wonder why the policy says, that blocks to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited, when administrators are accepted to decide that a position, they disagree with, is questionable.
Raphael Wegmann wrote:
I wonder why the policy says, that blocks to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited, when administrators are accepted to decide that a position, they disagree with, is questionable.
How about this then: I don't believe we've ever edited the same article and I agreed with the block.
There. Uninvolved admin. Move on, nothing to see here.
wikien-l@wikipedia.org wrote:
Raphael Wegmann wrote:
I wonder why the policy says, that blocks to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited, when administrators are accepted to decide that a position, they disagree with, is questionable.
How about this then: I don't believe we've ever edited the same article and I agreed with the block.
May I ask you what reason you'd have stated for your block? I'd like to state beforehand, that "Image removal" is not part of the Blocking policy, and ignoring content suggestions (resp. orders) from administrators (or block warnings for not to obeying to them) is neither.
Raphael Wegmann wrote:
May I ask you what reason you'd have stated for your block? I'd like to state beforehand, that "Image removal" is not part of the Blocking policy, and ignoring content suggestions (resp. orders) from administrators (or block warnings for not to obeying to them) is neither.
Since you've apparently read the Blocking policy, you did see the part about disruption, right? I'm fairly certain you're now just going to argue that you weren't being disruptive.
And for the record, you were ignoring an overwhelming consensus rarely seen on any subject (see the poll on the issue you conveniently forget about), not a few suggestions.
Michelle wrote:
Raphael Wegmann wrote:
May I ask you what reason you'd have stated for your block? I'd like to state beforehand, that "Image removal" is not part of the Blocking policy, and ignoring content suggestions (resp. orders) from administrators (or block warnings for not to obeying to them) is neither.
Since you've apparently read the Blocking policy, you did see the part about disruption, right? I'm fairly certain you're now just going to argue that you weren't being disruptive.
Yeah sure. "Disruption" is the loophole for administrators, who can't find any other policy, which backs their action. Can you elaborate in which way the two times I've moved the cartoons behind a link in five days, disrupted the normal functioning of Wikipedia to warrant a 7 day block?
Btw. WP:BP#Disruption states, that inserting material that may be defamatory may lead to a block, but so far nobody has been blocked for inserting the defamatory cartoons.
And for the record, you were ignoring an overwhelming consensus rarely seen on any subject (see the poll on the issue you conveniently forget about), not a few suggestions.
I wonder, whether you are familiar with the [[Wikipedia:No binding decisions]] policy. There is no reason why a 3 month old poll, which gets ignored by about 10 editors/week (if the article is not protected as it seems to be necessary most of the time), should be regarded as binding.
"There are people who have good sense. There are idiots. A consensus of idiots does not override good sense. Wikipedia is not a democracy." (Jimbo Wales)
I wouldn't use those words btw, but I agree with them "in spirit".
On 5/19/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
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!"
Exactly right. I recently noticed that WP:SOCK was being rewritten by accounts I didn't recognize, and some of the edits changed the policy in subtle but important ways. I made a few tweaks to undo some of the editing, then got suspicious that two of the accounts were banned user Zephram Stark, so I requested a user check, and when it confirmed that it was Zephram, I reverted the rewrite, protected the page, and reported the situation on AN/I. But the protection was undone by an admin who should remain nameless, on the grounds that my few edits to the page had made me "involved" in the dispute.
Sarah