I have a couple of questions.
First of all, in what circumstances should an admin block another admin?
Second of all, is it somehow "dishonest" for an admin to unblock themselves when they honestly believe they have done nothing wrong? Does it make them untrustworthy if they do not observe a block imposed upon them by another admin?
Third of all, isn't it considered wheel-warring if one admin constantly tries to block another, who constantly unblocks themselves? If this occurs, who is in the wrong? The blocking admin, I would assume?
I ask this because I am being repeatedly blocked on the Navajo Wikipedia by a new admin who seems to have popped up out of nowhere (despite an interesting history on the English Wikipedia and elsewhere), Jeff Merkey.
The reasons he gave for blocking me were legal threats (later clarified as "legal baiting", referring to me saying "hopefully you're not going to ... sue me for libel", referring to what I perceive to be a history of legal threats on the English Wikipedia, while this phrase may not be exactly "nice", I hardly think it violates NLT), sockpuppetry (to be more specific, he has accused me of cross-Wiki sockpuppetry, rather than having two different usernames or accounts at the same Wiki), and personal attacks (after having called me a spammer, a vandal, and a troll, he's certainly one to talk).
He also said "stay off this wiki for the next couple of weeks ... and think about ... why I or any other editor could place our trust in an Admin who unblocks themselves", leading me to wonder what the expected response is when one admin blocks another.
A few days ago, he also requested this: "Please stop wheel warring with me. It is not allowed." which begs the question: doesn't it take two admins to wheel war?
He has accused me of "breaking the rules" many times, but when I ask him for a citation of which rules have been broken, he simply tells me again that I am "breaking the rules" and that he will not tolerate it.
Back again to the main topic, I have not actually blocked him. If he were not an admin, I likely would've at least already given him several warnings for his extensive personal attacks, but I for one recognize that admins need to be afforded a greater deal of leeway and of course that it would be pointless anyhow as he can simply unblock himself.
Considering the fact that his only contributions at all to that Wiki so far have been harassing me and reverting the work of the communist vandal (which I could have done just as easily), I am wondering why he was made an admin in the first place, since he is obviously not very good at the language (I admit it is not my native language either, but he does not seem to know more than a couple words).
But I digress, the main issue of this post is intended to be the issue of admins blocking one another; I got off on a tangent, but I feel I'm perfectly capable of handling the rest of this situation myself through diplomacy since he claims to have some valuable resources for the development of nv.wp.
Mark
Mark Williamson wrote:
I have a couple of questions.
First of all, in what circumstances should an admin block another admin?
Second of all, is it somehow "dishonest" for an admin to unblock themselves when they honestly believe they have done nothing wrong? Does it make them untrustworthy if they do not observe a block imposed upon them by another admin?
I can only speak for consensus on the English Wikipedia, and don't know how far these are universal, but on en:
1. An admin generally cannot block another admin (or any other established user, for that matter), except in emergencies like vandalbots, or specific circumstances like a 24-hour block for 3RR violations. Those sorts of blocks are the Arbitration Committee's job---unilateral blocks by a single admin are only for cases like anon vandals or vandal-only accounts, not for blocking established users who have gotten engaged in disputes.
2. An admin is not generally supposed to unblock themselves, but instead place an {{unblock}} request on their talk page and wait for another admin to do it for them.
So I guess by en: standards, both sides in your description would be in the wrong. But some things are a little different---presumably small wikipedias have no ArbCom, and also don't have enough admins for an {{unblock}} request to be likely to be seen. So that's a bit of a problem.
-Mark
IMHO one, or both, of you need to be desysoped.
In general you should not unblock yourself unless the block message states it, or it is your autoblock AND somone else already unblocked you.
Does your project have an ArbCom that can take care of this dispute?
----- Original Message ----- From: "Delirium" delirium@hackish.org To: wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 5:00 PM Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Admins blocking each other
Mark Williamson wrote:
I have a couple of questions.
First of all, in what circumstances should an admin block another admin?
Second of all, is it somehow "dishonest" for an admin to unblock themselves when they honestly believe they have done nothing wrong? Does it make them untrustworthy if they do not observe a block imposed upon them by another admin?
I can only speak for consensus on the English Wikipedia, and don't know how far these are universal, but on en:
- An admin generally cannot block another admin (or any other
established user, for that matter), except in emergencies like vandalbots, or specific circumstances like a 24-hour block for 3RR violations. Those sorts of blocks are the Arbitration Committee's job---unilateral blocks by a single admin are only for cases like anon vandals or vandal-only accounts, not for blocking established users who have gotten engaged in disputes.
- An admin is not generally supposed to unblock themselves, but instead
place an {{unblock}} request on their talk page and wait for another admin to do it for them.
So I guess by en: standards, both sides in your description would be in the wrong. But some things are a little different---presumably small wikipedias have no ArbCom, and also don't have enough admins for an {{unblock}} request to be likely to be seen. So that's a bit of a problem.
-Mark
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
No, there is no arbcom because there are only two active users -- the blocking admin, and the blocked admin.
If there were other admins, I would never have unblocked myself (although for whatever reason, when I am blocked, it won't let me edit my talkpage, even though it's not locked). However, I have been an admin there for much, much longer than has he, and I felt that in fact it would've been more reasonable for me to have blocked him than vice-versa.
As noted in other e-mails on this thread, it is very rare for admins to block each other and usually only happens in the case of eg a compromised account. Jeff Merkey blocked me because he said I am "breaking the rules", but he doesn't seem to have a very good handle on policy.
Mark
On 20/02/07, xaosflux xaosflux@gmail.com wrote:
IMHO one, or both, of you need to be desysoped.
In general you should not unblock yourself unless the block message states it, or it is your autoblock AND somone else already unblocked you.
Does your project have an ArbCom that can take care of this dispute?
----- Original Message ----- From: "Delirium" delirium@hackish.org To: wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 5:00 PM Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Admins blocking each other
Mark Williamson wrote:
I have a couple of questions.
First of all, in what circumstances should an admin block another admin?
Second of all, is it somehow "dishonest" for an admin to unblock themselves when they honestly believe they have done nothing wrong? Does it make them untrustworthy if they do not observe a block imposed upon them by another admin?
I can only speak for consensus on the English Wikipedia, and don't know how far these are universal, but on en:
- An admin generally cannot block another admin (or any other
established user, for that matter), except in emergencies like vandalbots, or specific circumstances like a 24-hour block for 3RR violations. Those sorts of blocks are the Arbitration Committee's job---unilateral blocks by a single admin are only for cases like anon vandals or vandal-only accounts, not for blocking established users who have gotten engaged in disputes.
- An admin is not generally supposed to unblock themselves, but instead
place an {{unblock}} request on their talk page and wait for another admin to do it for them.
So I guess by en: standards, both sides in your description would be in the wrong. But some things are a little different---presumably small wikipedias have no ArbCom, and also don't have enough admins for an {{unblock}} request to be likely to be seen. So that's a bit of a problem.
-Mark
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 2/21/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
he doesn't seem to have a very good handle on policy.
Who's decision was it to make him an admin?
See http://tinyurl.com/338yqv for his adminship request on meta.
In case people aren't aware, the person who blocked Mark is User:Gadugi who (along with his sockpuppets) is blocked on the English Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&pag...
Angela
Meta:RFP seems to amount to "I want to be a sysop on (small project)." "OK, done." with no background check. (Kind of the counterpart to the bureaucratic nightmare that en:WP:RFA has become in the last few years.) Though I suppose it can be difficult to do any checking as it stands... another argument for single login, I guess.
-- Jake Nelson [[en:User:Jake Nelson]]
On 2/21/07, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/21/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
he doesn't seem to have a very good handle on policy.
Who's decision was it to make him an admin?
See http://tinyurl.com/338yqv for his adminship request on meta.
In case people aren't aware, the person who blocked Mark is User:Gadugi who (along with his sockpuppets) is blocked on the English Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&pag...
Angela
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Hoi, How would single login help ? It allows you to have one user for all projects. It does not prevent you from having multiple users. IMHO sock puppetry is typically a really odious idea. Thanks, GerardM
On 2/22/07, Jake Nelson duskwave@gmail.com wrote:
Meta:RFP seems to amount to "I want to be a sysop on (small project)." "OK, done." with no background check. (Kind of the counterpart to the bureaucratic nightmare that en:WP:RFA has become in the last few years.) Though I suppose it can be difficult to do any checking as it stands... another argument for single login, I guess.
-- Jake Nelson [[en:User:Jake Nelson]]
On 2/21/07, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/21/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
he doesn't seem to have a very good handle on policy.
Who's decision was it to make him an admin?
See http://tinyurl.com/338yqv for his adminship request on meta.
In case people aren't aware, the person who blocked Mark is User:Gadugi who (along with his sockpuppets) is blocked on the English Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&pag...
Angela
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Single login would mean that when looking at someone's history, you could check what they'd done at other projects, if they're not doing a multiple account/sockpuppet thing. If they are, then it's be easier to know they're either faking or inexperienced.
Of course, I think that if someone's been shown to be a sockpuppeting, disruptive jerk on one project, they're probably someone we should ban from all projects anyway...
-- Jake Nelson [[en:User:Jake Nelson]]
On 2/21/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, How would single login help ? It allows you to have one user for all projects. It does not prevent you from having multiple users. IMHO sock puppetry is typically a really odious idea. Thanks, GerardM
On 2/22/07, Jake Nelson duskwave@gmail.com wrote:
Meta:RFP seems to amount to "I want to be a sysop on (small project)." "OK, done." with no background check. (Kind of the counterpart to the bureaucratic nightmare that en:WP:RFA has become in the last few years.) Though I suppose it can be difficult to do any checking as it stands... another argument for single login, I guess.
-- Jake Nelson [[en:User:Jake Nelson]]
On 2/21/07, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/21/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
he doesn't seem to have a very good handle on policy.
Who's decision was it to make him an admin?
See http://tinyurl.com/338yqv for his adminship request on meta.
In case people aren't aware, the person who blocked Mark is User:Gadugi who (along with his sockpuppets) is blocked on the English Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&pag...
Angela
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
See http://tinyurl.com/338yqv for his adminship request on meta.
In case people aren't aware, the person who blocked Mark is User:Gadugi who (along with his sockpuppets) is blocked on the English Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&pag...
So it was basically a temporary sysopping until they built up a community. That was 2 months ago, and there is still no community. If it were up to me, I'd desysop both of them. The only thing you need admins for on such a dead wiki is deleting articles, and you can get by with blanking them. Once they've managed to attract a community, proper elections can be held.
There are plenty of admins on projects with that many (or less) articles. It's much easier to take care of vandals when you have sysops.
Mark
On 21/02/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
See http://tinyurl.com/338yqv for his adminship request on meta.
In case people aren't aware, the person who blocked Mark is User:Gadugi who (along with his sockpuppets) is blocked on the English Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&pag...
So it was basically a temporary sysopping until they built up a community. That was 2 months ago, and there is still no community. If it were up to me, I'd desysop both of them. The only thing you need admins for on such a dead wiki is deleting articles, and you can get by with blanking them. Once they've managed to attract a community, proper elections can be held.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Hi!
There's a monitoring group for small wikies AFAIK, so we could do without sysops. Yet, if I wanted to litter up an edition I would not do something an automated SWAT could easily find. In the end what you need is a person who can tell whether the text is a text or not. You could use a template as a signal for a deletion request, though.
One question, is THAT difficult to block a person at cross-edition level? I mean, a vandal is a vandal he will not help an edition and damage another. He'll do his job as much as he can. Once we have clear evidence we could simply get rid of them once and for all, methinks.
Bèrto d Sèra Personagi dlann 2006 për larvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojàotri) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
Hoi again!
I had a look on what he's doing at the Cherokee wiki, I would not call him a professional vandal. At least, even if he is a vandal, he is not ONLY a vandal. So in this case a general ban IMO would not be justified.
Mark, how much of this conflict is simply personal?
Bèrto d Sèra Personagi dlann 2006 për larvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojàotri) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
I never personally called him a vandal. I haven't blocked him, he has been blocking me. He is blocked on the English Wikipedia (as User:Gadugi and his various sockpuppets), and if you look at the reasons he's blocked there it doesn't make much sense for him to be sysop anywhere at all, but that is just my opinion.
I'm not sure how much of this conflict is personal. I have nothing against him, except that he doesn't seem to know policy very well and he has blocked me several times, and when I unblock myself that somehow means to him that I am "dishonest".
Mark
On 21/02/07, Berto 'd Sera albertoserra@ukr.net wrote:
Hoi again!
I had a look on what he's doing at the Cherokee wiki, I would not call him a professional vandal. At least, even if he is a vandal, he is not ONLY a vandal. So in this case a general ban IMO would not be justified.
Mark, how much of this conflict is simply personal?
Bèrto 'd Sèra Personagi dl'ann 2006 për l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojàotri) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Hi!
I do not know this guy personally, I have spoken with you (Mark) only here and quite casually, so all I can say is based on what I see/read/guess. IMHO, you either have a simple personal problem OR you have different conceptions of what should be done with the wiki.
Pls stop unblocking yourself asap and only ask for external intervention (as you are already doing, I seem to understand). I know that asking something is easy, but getting WMF to make ANY decision (even the most elementary ones) is actually harder than changing Earth's Orbit with your bare hands, so one can easily be tempted by a "Do It Yourself" solution. After all it's what wikies are about, isn't it? Yet when it gets to conflict it's the wrong way, believe me.
I'd really welcome an external "sort of U.N." ArbCom for things like these. I know it's not nice when we have to deal with annoying petty quarrels but someone must do the job, because no job gets done by leaving it on the table until the paper on which its specs are written gets destroyed by time.
Many people will probably rate it a waste of time since it's about a 2 people community. But if you cannot ensure that things go smooth and everybody's rights are respected when it's a small community.... then the winner will start to ban every newcomer who is not "politically correct" and there you go. It doesn't really matter whether the choice is made based on politics, religion, sexual orientation or just personal sympathy.
The result is but one anyway: only those who comply with "the rules" stay in and the community grows as a sect. Once it's not going to be just 2 guys but a full 300 people monolithically structured around some implicit "belief" of theirs... then you bet you're going to have a hard time in making that wiki behave like a wiki should.
Bèrto d Sèra Personagi dlann 2006 për larvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojàotri) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
Berto 'd Sera wrote:
Pls stop unblocking yourself asap and only ask for external intervention (as you are already doing, I seem to understand). I know that asking something is easy, but getting WMF to make ANY decision (even the most elementary ones) is actually harder than changing Earth's Orbit with your bare hands, so one can easily be tempted by a "Do It Yourself" solution. After all it's what wikies are about, isn't it? Yet when it gets to conflict it's the wrong way, believe me.
I don't think we should expect the WMF to solve this kind of problem. This may be the kind of situation where a steward should step in to help them find a solution.
I'd really welcome an external "sort of U.N." ArbCom for things like these. I know it's not nice when we have to deal with annoying petty quarrels but someone must do the job, because no job gets done by leaving it on the table until the paper on which its specs are written gets destroyed by time.
In the current dispute both parties are fluent English speakers so it could probably work. In some cases like wikis in other First Nations languages there may be nobody else available who is capable of understanding the language. At least attempting mediation would only need one person to look into the problem, and the disputants would need to provide a summary of the situation.
The result is but one anyway: only those who comply with "the rules" stay in and the community grows as a sect. Once it's not going to be just 2 guys but a full 300 people monolithically structured around some implicit "belief" of theirs... then you bet you're going to have a hard time in making that wiki behave like a wiki should.
Except for broad Wiki-wide principles rules in a 2-person wiki can be fairly meaningless. Either can propose a rule, and have the other half of the membership opposed to that rule.
Ec
On 2/22/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Berto 'd Sera wrote:
Pls stop unblocking yourself asap and only ask for external intervention (as you are already doing, I seem to understand). I know that asking something is easy, but getting WMF to make ANY decision (even the most elementary ones) is actually harder than changing Earth's Orbit with your bare hands, so one can easily be tempted by a "Do It Yourself" solution. After all it's what wikies are about, isn't it? Yet when it gets to conflict it's the wrong way, believe me.
I don't think we should expect the WMF to solve this kind of problem. This may be the kind of situation where a steward should step in to help them find a solution.
I'd really welcome an external "sort of U.N." ArbCom for things like these. I know it's not nice when we have to deal with annoying petty quarrels but someone must do the job, because no job gets done by leaving it on the table until the paper on which its specs are written gets destroyed by time.
In the current dispute both parties are fluent English speakers so it could probably work. In some cases like wikis in other First Nations languages there may be nobody else available who is capable of understanding the language. At least attempting mediation would only need one person to look into the problem, and the disputants would need to provide a summary of the situation.
The result is but one anyway: only those who comply with "the rules" stay in and the community grows as a sect. Once it's not going to be just 2 guys but a full 300 people monolithically structured around some implicit "belief" of theirs... then you bet you're going to have a hard time in making that wiki behave like a wiki should.
Except for broad Wiki-wide principles rules in a 2-person wiki can be fairly meaningless. Either can propose a rule, and have the other half of the membership opposed to that rule.
Do we have any en.wiki (or other) admins who are native american / first peoples / etc. and interested in possibly joining as a tiebreaker / otherwise uninvolved voice of reason on this project?
Or failing that, just someone with some bandwidth who isn't otherwise involved?
Perhaps you should just leave the Navajo Wikipedia.
On 2/22/07, Berto 'd Sera albertoserra@ukr.net wrote:
Hi!
I do not know this guy personally, I have spoken with you (Mark) only here and quite casually, so all I can say is based on what I see/read/guess. IMHO, you either have a simple personal problem OR you have different conceptions of what should be done with the wiki.
Pls stop unblocking yourself asap and only ask for external intervention (as you are already doing, I seem to understand). I know that asking something is easy, but getting WMF to make ANY decision (even the most elementary ones) is actually harder than changing Earth's Orbit with your bare hands, so one can easily be tempted by a "Do It Yourself" solution. After all it's what wikies are about, isn't it? Yet when it gets to conflict it's the wrong way, believe me.
I'd really welcome an external "sort of U.N." ArbCom for things like these. I know it's not nice when we have to deal with annoying petty quarrels but someone must do the job, because no job gets done by leaving it on the table until the paper on which its specs are written gets destroyed by time.
Many people will probably rate it a waste of time since it's about a 2 people community. But if you cannot ensure that things go smooth and everybody's rights are respected when it's a small community.... then the winner will start to ban every newcomer who is not "politically correct" and there you go. It doesn't really matter whether the choice is made based on politics, religion, sexual orientation or just personal sympathy.
The result is but one anyway: only those who comply with "the rules" stay in and the community grows as a sect. Once it's not going to be just 2 guys but a full 300 people monolithically structured around some implicit "belief" of theirs... then you bet you're going to have a hard time in making that wiki behave like a wiki should.
Bèrto 'd Sèra Personagi dl'ann 2006 për l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojàotri) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_permissions&old...
Romihaitza. Mr Merkey didn't specify a reason for his request.
Mark
On 21/02/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
he doesn't seem to have a very good handle on policy.
Who's decision was it to make him an admin?
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On en it is absolutely forbidden for an admin to unblock themselves (unless they have the consent of the blocking admin, for example when testing things). An admin blocking another admin is frowned upon and would need a very good reason, but it tolerated under some (rare) circumstances (eg. you have reason to think the account has been compromised, although you would actually need an emergency desysopping in that case).
So, in your situation, I would say you were definitely in the wrong, the blocking admin was probably in the wrong.
You should have requested another admin to unblock you, just like any other use would. The blocking admin should have gone through the proper channels (ArbCom or equiv.).
2007/2/21, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
You should have requested another admin to unblock you, just like any other use would. The blocking admin should have gone through the proper channels (ArbCom or equiv.).
This is all good and well on a big wiki, but on nv: the only admins, and in fact the only regular users, are the two involved people. The only other admin that could have been asked was the blocking admin himself, the proper channel would be to get agreement between all blocked users - half of which are the person being blocked, the other half the person doing the blocking...
This is all good and well on a big wiki, but on nv: the only admins, and in fact the only regular users, are the two involved people. The only other admin that could have been asked was the blocking admin himself, the proper channel would be to get agreement between all blocked users - half of which are the person being blocked, the other half the person doing the blocking...
Well, that's another matter entirely. It's a case of there not being enough admins for them to provide checks and balances for eachother. I'm not sure what can be done about that...
Thomas Dalton wrote:
This is all good and well on a big wiki, but on nv: the only admins, and in fact the only regular users, are the two involved people. The only other admin that could have been asked was the blocking admin himself, the proper channel would be to get agreement between all blocked users - half of which are the person being blocked, the other half the person doing the blocking...
Well, that's another matter entirely. It's a case of there not being enough admins for them to provide checks and balances for eachother. I'm not sure what can be done about that...
If there are only two regular users (admins or not), is this wiki currently a sustainable project?
-Rich Holton [[w:en:User:Rholton]]
2007/2/21, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com:
This is all good and well on a big wiki, but on nv: the only admins, and in fact the only regular users, are the two involved people. The only other admin that could have been asked was the blocking admin himself, the proper channel would be to get agreement between all blocked users - half of which are the person being blocked, the other half the person doing the blocking...
Little slip of the keyboard - where I wrote 'all blocked users' please disregard the word 'blocked'.
Hi!
This is all good and well on a big wiki, but on nv: the only admins, and in fact the only regular users, are the two involved people. The only other admin that could have been asked was the blocking admin himself, the proper channel would be to get agreement between all blocked users
- half of which are the person being blocked, the other half the person
doing the blocking...
LOL you guys suddenly made me feel that I come from a HUGE community :) Seriously, such things are going to happen frequently on small wikies, if and when there are problems in personal relations. Can't we have an external Shared ArbCom for it?
Berto 'd Sera Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org