Cla68 blocked, Cla68:trolling for incompetent administrators? Options

[Abd]

block review request on AN

So TP (that's a common Americanism for "toilet paper") becomes involved in a dispute with Cla68, and then blocks him. To his credit, it's only a 24 hour block, and he does ask for review. However, given that the discussion was taking place with wide attention, and that it wasn't an emergency, he'd have done far better to merely bring the matter up as a request for neutral review and action.

Too many admins simply don't get recusal policy, and one reason is that the "community" has heavily resisted clarifying it. It could be made quite clear, while still allowing emergency action in spite of a recusal obligation. I tried to establish this at Wikiversity, and it was resisted there, even though the Wikiversity environment is usually less toxic.

Recusal should be required whenever an appearance of involvement will exist for a reasonable observer, and I've claimed that a user claiming bias would be adequate, normally. Exceptions would exist and could be documented. Being involved in a content dispute is obviously involvement, though, with blocking being a means of "winning" the content dispute.

And then any admin could still act in the presence of a recusal requirement, by declaring an emergency, i.e., that harm would ensue if no action is taken. This would then require that the admin recuse from further action in the matter, establish the block reason by evidence, and turn the matter over to the administrative community. Claiming an emergency when there is no emergency, per later judgment, would be an error, and if this became common, there would be grounds for desysopping. But ordinary error, following proper procedure, wouldn't be such grounds.

Cla68 does seem to have been a tad insistent. I never resisted collapsing discussions of mine, provided that the summary was fair. I haven't looked at the situation, it does seem that Cla68 attempted to place a summary, and TP revert warred on that. It would have been far better to negotiate a fair summary. Instead TP insisted on My Way or the Highway.

Incompetent administrator. So new? Next case....

[EricBarbour]

You will see more of this in coming months.

And just an aside: TParis is one bizarre character. He's obsessed with the Faerie Path series of novels,
and has written typical useless, unsourced, detail-saturated fanboy articles about them. Plus other
fantasy works.

Otherwise he's a notability stickler and a hostile patroller with great fondness for slapping warnings on
talkpages. Another troll who should not have passed an RFA, ho hum.

As with a lot of guys who edit on employer time (oh, yeah, you betcha he does), he is evidently not
kept busy enough by the US Air Force. Otherwise not worth discussing.

(He had personal details on his userpage, and as soon as he was an admin, he blasted all the diffs away.)

[Cla68]

Ad hominem debating tactics are a plague in Wikipedia. Time to take a stand against it.

[SB_Johnny]

Ad hominem debating tactics are a plague in Wikipedia. Time to take a stand against it.

The make moar dramah approach to taking a stand isn't necessarily a principled one.

Just sayin.

[Silenteditor]

Ad hominem debating tactics are a plague in Wikipedia. Time to take a stand against it.

The make moar dramah approach to taking a stand isn't necessarily a principled one.

Just sayin.

But is there a non-moar-dramah approach to taking a stand in wikipedia?

(Or, I guess, is a non-moar-dramah approach which also has a chance of reaching a reasonable outcome in a reasonable time?)