[WikiEN-l] BLPs in the papers

Wily D wilydoppelganger at gmail.com
Thu Feb 21 12:43:39 UTC 2008

On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 4:43 AM, Raphael Wegmann <raphael at psi.co.at> wrote:
> Wily D schrieb:
>  > On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 6:59 PM, Raphael Wegmann <raphael at psi.co.at> wrote:
>  >> Wily D schrieb:
>  >>
>  >>> On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 6:09 PM, Raphael Wegmann <raphael at psi.co.at> wrote:
>  >>
>  >>  >>  How about WP:BLOCK?
>  >>  >>  "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a
>  >>  >>  content dispute."
>  >>  >>
>  >>  >>  Is it still "correct action" if they do?
>  >>  >>
>  >>
>  >>  > One, of course, still has the legs of IAR, the general principle of
>  >>  > "no lawyering" and so forth to stand on from time to time, but in
>  >>  > general no.  Of course "content dispute" is a nebulous term, and oft
>  >>  > times overly broadly defined by those who're misbehaving - if you
>  >>  > removing trolling, for instance, the person trolling will inevitably
>  >>  > claim they're in a content dispute with you, which is simply not true.
>  >>  >
>  >>  > But if they make a correct block in that situation, what is it you're
>  >>  > hoping someone else would do?  Unblock then reblock?  In an "all
>  >>  > volunteer" justice system, it's hard to get people roused about
>  >>  > technicalities when justive has been done.
>  >>  >
>  >>
>  >>  You don't even consider, that an admin might do wrong, do you?
>  >>  Don't you think, that it's pretty easy to abuse your power,
>  >>  when you are judge and executor at the same time?
>  >>  What prevents you from calling all your opponents in content
>  >>  disputes wiki-lawyering trolls?
>  >>
>  >>
> > Sure, admins make terrible decisions all the time.  I've altered at
>  > least one admin action I've taken afterwards based on feedback from
>  > other editors, and as recently as today I asked another admin to
>  > reconsider his admin action, he did so and reverted his decision.
>  > Admins are these odd creatues called "humans" that make stacks of bad
>  > decisions.
>  >
>  > It's easy to abuse your power when you're judge and executioner, but
>  > admins don't really have these rolls.  Anyone an admin "sentences" can
>  > be unsentenced, anyone we "execute" can be resurrected.  These actions
>  > do happen all the time - review of administrative actions are easy to
>  > obtain.
>  Correcting the "mistakes" is one thing. But what does it take
>  to deprive an admin of his privileges?

This I don't specifically know, but one can review recent arbitrations
that resulted in desysopin's and take a stab at it.

>  > Nothing prevents me from making ad-hominem arguments in content
>  > disputes.  Of course, that's a terrible method and I'd likely lose
>  > such a dispute, but I could do it, same as anyone from the lowliest IP
>  > to Jimbo Wales.
>  Yes, everybody can make ad-hominem arguments in content disputes,
>  but only admins can use those attacks to evade [[WP:BLOCK]]
>  as you suggested in your previous email.

Ad hominem arguments don't help you block anyone.  There's a little
link that says "block" that lets you do it - and you don't need any
argument at all.  But without a (community accepted) basis, it's
unlikely to stand against a user who contests it civilly.  The unblock
mailing list, for instance, a single admin really can't control, and
will investigate blocks of people who ask civilly (although I suspect
the "Subject:ZOMG FUCKING CABAL!!!!1cos(0)!!!" emails don't get a fair

>  > The ArbCom has shown a willingness of late to bust
>  > the chops of any admin who looks like they've done anything remotely
>  > wrong, and if there were any substance to the assumptions behind these
>  > questions one could employ it with good success.
>  Is there a reason you went back to subjunctive? Didn't you just say,
>  that admins are humans who make stacks of bad decisions?
>  Are the admins, who's "chops get busted" deprived of their privileges?
>  I've never observed anything like that. Instead my observation rather
>  suggest, that there usually is the sociological explainable in-group
>  phenomenon at play. I.e. even to my direct question, whether an admin
>  might do wrong, you are only willing to admit, that an admin - as every
>  human - does make *bad decisions*. It still wouldn't come to your mind,
>  that an admin might as well intentionally abuse his privileges.
>  --
>  Raphael
Err, yes, I said admins make bad decisions, and I would suggest that
only admins who've shown malicious intent or unwilliness/inability to
learn from their missteps need to be desysop'd - although recent
events suggest the ArbCom disagrees.  And while I'd be loath to call
the extra administrative tools "priviledges", admins do get desysop'd
for a variety of things, yes.  There are admins who've abused their
extra functions and been desysop'd or even indef banned - certainly
those who've used sockpuppets to create illusions of consensus have on
occasion, and others from time to time for other reasons.  But
realistically, apart from sockpuppeting, abusing your admin tools is
almost certain to be counterproductive - it's just too easy for anyone
to show you've done it, have your action reversed and get yourself
desysop'd by the ArbCom.


More information about the WikiEN-l mailing list