QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 27th May 2010, 11:57pm)
Abd, it occurs to me that what you are asking of Greg amounts to a 2-person social contract.
As you may be aware, I'm generally an advocate in favor of social contracts, but not a bunch of separate 2-person social contracts. Imagine an N-person community, with N(N-1)/2 separately negotiated 2-person social contracts. It would be a nightmare.
What WV needs is a single N-person social contract that everyone subscribes to (including the would-be tyrants).
Sure. However, notice that this ""2-person contract" is solely between the 2 persons involved, and is only enforceable by mutual consent. "A bunch of negotated 2-person social contracts" is nothing other than people cooperating by mutual agreement. There is no coercion involved. Greg cannot force me to act on his behalf, and what I'm asking of him as a condition for that specific action is only what I need to be able to take it. Indeed, such voluntary contracts could very efficiently improve Wikipedia, and administrators often enter into these agreements with editors, sometimes even with editors they do not necessarily trust to keep up the agreement. But when the editor violates the agreement, as seen by the administrator, there goes that admin's unblocking support, if that's what was involved. This is basic Wikipedia structure in fact, when it works, and is not a sign of failure. I agree that broader social contracts are useful and even necessary, but it all starts with simple, direct cooperation, and cooperation is fostered, not inhibited, by agreements.
Moulton, your mathematical argument is preposterous. If it were required for everyone to have a contract with everyone else, negotiated, you'd be correct. But that is far, far, from the situation you are looking at here. Kohs effectively suggested that someone support his unblock (or unblock directly, there are those who might see this who do have the tools). I said, "Okay, if...." That's all. Very simple.
And there are other things I can and will do that might please Kohs, without him needing to make any promise at all. I support civil and careful criticism of Wikipedia. That places me in some kind of intermediate position with him, because his criticism is often cogent but is sometimes uncivil or unnecessarily disruptive. Kohs is Kohs, and I have no right to expect him to change.
Unless he agrees to it.