[WikiEN-l] Blocking opponent in disputes

[Raphael Wegmann]

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