FT2 wrote:
Without commenting on the specific case itself, this
is to focus on the
final question " What should be done about this? The blocking admin insists
he did nothing wrong"
The issue is less one of the blocking admin doing something wrong than
the blocking admin failing to do something right.
There is a balance of two issues here.
On the one hand, admins are trusted and they are appointed on the back of a
significant majority who believe they deserve that trust. Part of the reason
is, they are not 100% fettered by rules and writings; they have their own
personal judgement of what is best for the project, and a key part of their
role is to use that judgement.
I don't want this to become a discussion of RfA, but once a person has
succeeded in that process it should never be seen as a relaxation of the
rules that apply to him. There is no basis to the theory that success
at becoming an admin implies superior judgement. For justice to be seen
to be done it is necessary that it be administered with an even hand.
On the other hand, admins are accountable to a higher
standard than most
editors. I was asked at RFA what I felt the difference was with admins, and
summed it up, "admins have fewer excuses". I believe that. An admin is
presumed to know that COI is an issue, and balance that with IAR and benefit
of the project. An admin is trusted to not misuse their access, and if in
doubt to double check. There is historically, a culture of trust and
presumption of self-management, self-discipline to check or ask others to
act if doubt may arise. Admins are trusted to act as role models, to
exemplify meutrality when they act as admins, more, not less, than users in
general.
Sure these are good points about what more is expected of admins.
Accountability is a measure of _how_ we hold them to those standards,
and that requires more than just outlining what those higher standards are.
Admins are human and emotion isn't ignorable, but
inability to consider ones
position, balance it, decide to recuse, set aside involvement, or misuse of
access, are always going to breach my feeling on the subject. Every admin
knows that if there is a problem, one can ask others. Just like every editor
should know if you have a dispute you seek DR, not to edit/revert war.
If it did happen that an admin broke 3RR or revert warred, or
mischaracterized an editor as vandalistic when this was unfair, then that
shows a certain disregard for communal standards and their position as a
role model. If the user was out of line, these are still not how to handle
it - one blocks them for 24 hours +, warns them, asks others to intervene...
whatever. There may be a good case to IAR and block a user, or call a spade
a spade, but there is (for example) *never* a good case to mischaracterize
them to make them seem blacker than the reality.
The mischaracterization served only to compound the problem; the real
problem was a failure to apply the rules even-handedly.
How the problem is "solved" depends on 2
things:
1. Is there actually a problem, as opposed to an isolated case? Yes there
are several cases cited, but with multiple thousands of editors, vandals and
warriors, and edits watched in real time by hundreds of admins, it's
important not to assume a few cases mean there is a "problem".
2. What the community thinks. Problems of this kind would be solved by the
community taking a view what is best, and by discussion of proposals, and by
changing trends. (For example, admins may one day decide to be stricter
about critiquing obvious bias or COI by other admins, if there was a
problem.)
This is still not a question of what the rules are, or how much they
should be discussed. It is a question of the application of the rules.
Beyond these, I'm not sure what else I can say.
But those, to me, seem like
the core of it. We're here to build a project via a community, and no large
community runs 100.000% smoothly. It's important not to over-react or expect
utter perfection, *and* it's important to not be complacent and condone
wrong actions. There is a balance. Assessing if the balance we have now is a
good one or if we want to tweak it a bit, is the real question here.
The purpose of 3RR is to put the brakes on an edit war. Applying it has
nothing to do with applying what is the "correct" version of an
article. It is applied without regard to the article's contents. That's
also why a 3RR block should never exceed 24 hours.
3RR is one of the easiest rules for a good-faith newbie to break with
inevitable consequences. Experienced users should be more likely to
know the rule. When a newbie see that he is blocked for something, but
that his more experienced adversary is not his first impression will be
that this is a biased project which does not apply the rules equally.
It is important not just to achieve justice, but to achieve the
perception of justice. The blocking should be to both parties, and they
should both be notified that both have been blocked.
Since the 3RR block is a short term one intended to achieve a specific
purpose, it would defeat that purpose to impose the block on the second
party when the 24 hours has already expired. An apology and an
explanation to the newbie is in order, and that should include an
admission that failure to block the admin at the same time was in error.
Ec