[WikiEN-l] Blocking opponent in disputes

[Ben McIlwain]

-----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 ~
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFEbe4JvCEYTv+mBWcRAlLtAKCbJNXI2MuUXn//gx29h3vll59ZPACgngFs
2iThiKadAnH2KyQp5u7aM/8=
=jaFt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----