tl;dr version: three users including two admins revert-war a newbie past 3RR; one of them blocks the newbie for it, and doesn't block one of the admins, who had also broken 3RR, because the edits - made in good faith, and possibly even good edits - were supposedly vandalism. The blocking admin insists he did nothing wrong.
Introductory links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mm555 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=U.S._Route_50&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mm555
Rschen7754 and TwinsMetsFan are admins; O is not one on en.
Mm555 appears to be a newbie, or a former IP editor, from the Carson City, Nevada area. Among his edits, he edited [[U.S. Route 50]] to add junctions with US 395 and US 95 to the infobox, and was reverted a few times, in my opinion properly, since having that many junctions for each state would make it too big. A comment was added to the infobox: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=U.S._Route_50&diff=prev&ol... stating that there were enough junctions.
A discussion on the talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:U.S._Route_50#Junctions_list_for_US_50 basically agreed that US 93 is not a major junction and US 95 would be better; US 395 was brought up but not rejected.
Mm555, after reverting a change from US 93 to US 95: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=U.S._Route_50&diff=next&ol... decided that US 395 is better and changed to that: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=U.S._Route_50&diff=next&ol...
Personally, I think I agree; the US 395 and US 95 junctions are fairly close, and the US 395 junction is in Carson City, the state capital.
Rschen7754 reverted his edit "to good version", O made four reverts, and TwinsMetsFan made one. Mm555 ended up making five reverts. Rschen7754 warned him several times for vandalism, and O threw in a "Please do stop and read the guideline" ( Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Infoboxes and Navigation/Infobox , which it doesn't look like anyone linked him to); it's also about the number of junctions, not which one to choose. Nobody told him about the 3RR and nobody pointed him to the talk page discussion. TwinsMetsFan blocked him for 3RR, but did not block O.
I confronted TMF and O on IRC, and TMF said he didn't block O because O was reverting vandalism. They claimed that Mm555's edits were vandalism because he wasn't following the consensus on the talk page.
What should be done about this? The blocking admin insists he did nothing wrong; I didn't get a chance to talk with the other admin, who gave most of the warnings. Obviously Mm555 should be unblocked and apologized to, if he's not already gone. But how do we prevent this from happening again?
On 09/09/2007, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
What should be done about this?
User:O should be listed on WP:an/3RR so that the people there can decide what to do.
Obviously Mm555 should be unblocked and apologized to, if he's not already gone.
Acording to common practice with regards to the 3RR yes. Acording to policy that would be optional.
... So we've discussed it, but nobody's actually said anything to Mm555 or TwinsMetsFan. Why?
on 9/9/07 8:00 AM, SPUI at drspui@gmail.com wrote:
... So we've discussed it, but nobody's actually said anything to Mm555 or TwinsMetsFan. Why?
Excellent question. I know the answer, but most everyone here doesn't seem ready to hear it.
Marc Riddell
On 09/09/2007, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 9/9/07 8:00 AM, SPUI at drspui@gmail.com wrote:
... So we've discussed it, but nobody's actually said anything to Mm555 or TwinsMetsFan. Why?
Excellent question. I know the answer, but most everyone here doesn't seem ready to hear it.
Marc Riddell
-- Living with unanswered questions is like wrestling with an invisible opponent.
*waiting eagerly for Marc's answer*
Well I haven't been reading the list for a bit, so as I scanned through I assumed someone already had.
Go for it, why has no one done this yet? I am Ready To Hear.
-kc-
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 9/9/07 8:00 AM, SPUI at drspui@gmail.com wrote:
... So we've discussed it, but nobody's actually said anything to Mm555 or TwinsMetsFan. Why?
Excellent question. I know the answer, but most everyone here doesn't seem ready to hear it.
Marc Riddell
on 9/13/07 3:53 PM, Puppy at puppy@KillerChihuahua.com wrote:
Well I haven't been reading the list for a bit, so as I scanned through I assumed someone already had.
Go for it, why has no one done this yet? I am Ready To Hear.
-kc-
Ready to hear what? You're a bit late to the party here, KC.
Marc Riddell
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 9/9/07 8:00 AM, SPUI at drspui@gmail.com wrote:
... So we've discussed it, but nobody's actually said anything to Mm555 or TwinsMetsFan. Why?
Excellent question. I know the answer, but most everyone here doesn't seem ready to hear it.
Marc Riddell
Yes, I thought I made that (late to party) clear when I said I hadn't been following the list for a few days. "Ready to hear" is a direct quote from you, actually in the email to which I replied. You claimed insight to why no one said anything to Mm555 or TwinsMetsFan, and stated no one was "ready to hear" it. I am interested in your thoughts about the matter. Was that a limited time offer?
-kc-
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 9/13/07 3:53 PM, Puppy at puppy@KillerChihuahua.com wrote:
Well I haven't been reading the list for a bit, so as I scanned through I assumed someone already had.
Go for it, why has no one done this yet? I am Ready To Hear.
-kc-
Ready to hear what? You're a bit late to the party here, KC.
Marc Riddell
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 9/9/07 8:00 AM, SPUI at drspui@gmail.com wrote:
... So we've discussed it, but nobody's actually said anything to Mm555 or TwinsMetsFan. Why?
Excellent question. I know the answer, but most everyone here doesn't seem ready to hear it.
Marc Riddell
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 9/9/07, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
... So we've discussed it, but nobody's actually said anything to Mm555 or TwinsMetsFan. Why?
From Mm555's talk page...
"I'm going to keep seeing to it that Carson City STAYS on that list"
What Mm555 should be told that "I'm gonna do what I want to do and screw you all" is the exact opposite of the WP consensus model. Also, WP:BITE should work both ways. You don't just drop out of the sky and start a war with more experienced editors. However, what Mm555 and the ip user did wasn't really vandalism, just obstinance, which in some cases is worse then vandalism.
On 09/09/2007, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/9/07, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
... So we've discussed it, but nobody's actually said anything to Mm555 or TwinsMetsFan. Why?
From Mm555's talk page...
"I'm going to keep seeing to it that Carson City STAYS on that list"
What Mm555 should be told that "I'm gonna do what I want to do and screw you all" is the exact opposite of the WP consensus model. Also, WP:BITE should work both ways. You don't just drop out of the sky and start a war with more experienced editors. However, what Mm555 and the ip user did wasn't really vandalism, just obstinance, which in some cases is worse then vandalism.
If y'all are more interested in making ad-hominem attacks against Mm555 than in discussing the pros and cons of placing Carson City on the list, perhaps y'all should just edit war all day - get it out of your system, talk later.
On 9/9/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
If y'all are more interested in making ad-hominem attacks against Mm555 than in discussing the pros and cons of placing Carson City on the list, perhaps y'all should just edit war all day - get it out of your system, talk later.
This thread is not about the "pros and cons of placing Carson City on the list", that discussion belongs on the article's talk page. It's about the behavior of the participants in an edit war. With everybody discussion the behavior of the experienced editors, who perhaps did overreact, I thought it important to show that there's plenty of blame to go around and the experienced editors weren't reacting to a "simple newbie mistake".
On 09/09/2007, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
This thread is not about the "pros and cons of placing Carson City on the list", that discussion belongs on the article's talk page. It's about the behavior of the participants in an edit war. With everybody discussion the behavior of the experienced editors, who perhaps did overreact, I thought it important to show that there's plenty of blame to go around and the experienced editors weren't reacting to a "simple newbie mistake".
Brilliant! Now that we have established that each involved was a red-blooded human with faults, perhaps forget about it rather than branding them as edit warriors?
On 9/9/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/9/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
If y'all are more interested in making ad-hominem attacks against Mm555 than in discussing the pros and cons of placing Carson City on the list, perhaps y'all should just edit war all day - get it out of your system, talk later.
This thread is not about the "pros and cons of placing Carson City on the list", that discussion belongs on the article's talk page. It's about the behavior of the participants in an edit war. With everybody discussion the behavior of the experienced editors, who perhaps did overreact, I thought it important to show that there's plenty of blame to go around and the experienced editors weren't reacting to a "simple newbie mistake".
No, the experienced editors weren't reacting to a simple newbie mistake, they were reacting to a slightly complex newbie mistake (although not really an uncommon nor unexpected one). This mitigates their error, but they were still in error, and an apology is still warranted.
On 9/9/07, Michael Noda michael.noda@gmail.com wrote:
No, the experienced editors weren't reacting to a simple newbie mistake, they were reacting to a slightly complex newbie mistake (although not really an uncommon nor unexpected one). This mitigates their error, but they were still in error, and an apology is still warranted.
I checked again and all the edit warriors have kissed and made up and agreed to a compromise which is good. User:Mm555 has said he will "change the way he edits pages. However, he has also removed the "vandalism" warnings from his talk page. Maybe he should get a pass on that one since what he did was really not "vandalism".
Also, the more I think about it, we really should start cracking down on the misuse of vandalism warnings and reverts falsely labeled as "vandalism", especially if there is even the slightest appearance that they are being used as an end run around 3RR.
On 12/09/2007, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
However, he has also removed the "vandalism" warnings from his talk page.
sigh, people are allowed to remove warnings
On 12/09/2007, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
I checked again and all the edit warriors have kissed and made up and agreed to a compromise which is good. User:Mm555 has said he will "change the way he edits pages. However, he has also removed the "vandalism" warnings from his talk page. Maybe he should get a pass on that one since what he did was really not "vandalism".
No-one is obliged to keep vandalism warnings at all. The removal shows they read them.
Also, the more I think about it, we really should start cracking down on the misuse of vandalism warnings and reverts falsely labeled as "vandalism", especially if there is even the slightest appearance that they are being used as an end run around 3RR.
By gentle cluification of offenders and an assumption of good faith and improvable judgement on their part, of course.
- d.
SPUI wrote:
tl;dr version: three users including two admins revert-war a newbie past 3RR; one of them blocks the newbie for it, and doesn't block one of the admins, who had also broken 3RR, because the edits - made in good faith, and possibly even good edits - were supposedly vandalism. The blocking admin insists he did nothing wrong.
Introductory links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mm555 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=U.S._Route_50&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mm555
Rschen7754 and TwinsMetsFan are admins; O is not one on en.
Mm555 appears to be a newbie, or a former IP editor, from the Carson City, Nevada area. Among his edits, he edited [[U.S. Route 50]] to add junctions with US 395 and US 95 to the infobox, and was reverted a few times, in my opinion properly, since having that many junctions for each state would make it too big. A comment was added to the infobox: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=U.S._Route_50&diff=prev&ol... stating that there were enough junctions.
A discussion on the talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:U.S._Route_50#Junctions_list_for_US_50 basically agreed that US 93 is not a major junction and US 95 would be better; US 395 was brought up but not rejected.
Mm555, after reverting a change from US 93 to US 95: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=U.S._Route_50&diff=next&ol... decided that US 395 is better and changed to that: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=U.S._Route_50&diff=next&ol...
Personally, I think I agree; the US 395 and US 95 junctions are fairly close, and the US 395 junction is in Carson City, the state capital.
Rschen7754 reverted his edit "to good version", O made four reverts, and TwinsMetsFan made one. Mm555 ended up making five reverts. Rschen7754 warned him several times for vandalism, and O threw in a "Please do stop and read the guideline" ( Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Infoboxes and Navigation/Infobox , which it doesn't look like anyone linked him to); it's also about the number of junctions, not which one to choose. Nobody told him about the 3RR and nobody pointed him to the talk page discussion. TwinsMetsFan blocked him for 3RR, but did not block O.
I confronted TMF and O on IRC, and TMF said he didn't block O because O was reverting vandalism. They claimed that Mm555's edits were vandalism because he wasn't following the consensus on the talk page.
What should be done about this? The blocking admin insists he did nothing wrong; I didn't get a chance to talk with the other admin, who gave most of the warnings. Obviously Mm555 should be unblocked and apologized to, if he's not already gone. But how do we prevent this from happening again?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
It would be improper not to block both. Vandalism doesn't include "edits which I believe to be against consensus", and it's pretty clear that Mm555 was doing nothing which could be legitimately considered vandalism. While it seems a block at this time would likely be punitive rather than preventative, it needs to be clarified that, firstly, an involved admin shouldn't have made the call, and secondly, "He's going against consensus!" is -not- a valid reason to violate 3RR.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Todd Allen's mail client expels the following stream of bytes on 9/8/2007 7:44 PM:
It would be improper not to block both. Vandalism doesn't include "edits which I believe to be against consensus", and it's pretty clear that Mm555 was doing nothing which could be legitimately considered vandalism. While it seems a block at this time would likely be punitive rather than preventative, it needs to be clarified that, firstly, an involved admin shouldn't have made the call, and secondly, "He's going against consensus!" is -not- a valid reason to violate 3RR.
Fully agree. Scratch my "TMF did nothing wrong" part of my last message; I am really having a bad day today.
- -- Charli (vishwin/O)
On 9/9/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
It would be improper not to block both. Vandalism doesn't include "edits which I believe to be against consensus", and it's pretty clear that Mm555 was doing nothing which could be legitimately considered vandalism.
The three-revert rule says "simple and obvious vandalism" for precisely this reason. Only actions for which there could be no explanation other than vandalism, like inserting gibberish or blanking a page, meet this standard. Actual content edits, even if they are contrary to any pre-existing consensus, do not meet this standard.
While it seems a block at this time would likely be punitive rather than preventative, it needs to be clarified that, firstly, an involved admin shouldn't have made the call, and secondly, "He's going against consensus!" is -not- a valid reason to violate 3RR.
Yes, there's no need for more blocks now. The blocking admin will learn his lesson from this mistake and remember that in the future, blocking for 3RR is to be applied to anyone who breaches it.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
SPUI's mail client expels the following stream of bytes on 9/8/2007 7:04 PM:
tl;dr version: three users including two admins revert-war a newbie past 3RR; one of them blocks the newbie for it, and doesn't block one of the admins, who had also broken 3RR, because the edits - made in good faith, and possibly even good edits - were supposedly vandalism. The blocking admin insists he did nothing wrong.
Introductory links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mm555 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=U.S._Route_50&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mm555
Rschen7754 and TwinsMetsFan are admins; O is not one on en.
Mm555 appears to be a newbie, or a former IP editor, from the Carson City, Nevada area. Among his edits, he edited [[U.S. Route 50]] to add junctions with US 395 and US 95 to the infobox, and was reverted a few times, in my opinion properly, since having that many junctions for each state would make it too big. A comment was added to the infobox: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=U.S._Route_50&diff=prev&ol... stating that there were enough junctions.
A discussion on the talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:U.S._Route_50#Junctions_list_for_US_50 basically agreed that US 93 is not a major junction and US 95 would be better; US 395 was brought up but not rejected.
Mm555, after reverting a change from US 93 to US 95: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=U.S._Route_50&diff=next&ol... decided that US 395 is better and changed to that: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=U.S._Route_50&diff=next&ol...
Personally, I think I agree; the US 395 and US 95 junctions are fairly close, and the US 395 junction is in Carson City, the state capital.
Rschen7754 reverted his edit "to good version", O made four reverts, and TwinsMetsFan made one. Mm555 ended up making five reverts. Rschen7754 warned him several times for vandalism, and O threw in a "Please do stop and read the guideline" ( Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Infoboxes and Navigation/Infobox , which it doesn't look like anyone linked him to); it's also about the number of junctions, not which one to choose. Nobody told him about the 3RR and nobody pointed him to the talk page discussion. TwinsMetsFan blocked him for 3RR, but did not block O.
Well, we were wrong for using vandalism in the wrong way; we should've used 3RR instead. I do need to apologise for using the wrong term(s). The guideline was linked to in the section header as a shortcut, and the talk page was clearly linked on mm555's talk page.
I confronted TMF and O on IRC, and TMF said he didn't block O because O was reverting vandalism. They claimed that Mm555's edits were vandalism because he wasn't following the consensus on the talk page.
What should be done about this? The blocking admin insists he did nothing wrong; I didn't get a chance to talk with the other admin, who gave most of the warnings. Obviously Mm555 should be unblocked and apologized to, if he's not already gone. But how do we prevent this from happening again?
I do have to agree that TMF did absolutely nothing wrong with blocking mm555, as the blocking policy clearly states that edit and revert warring and that continuous violations of policies/guidelines when a consensus from uninvolved users says it's disruptive. The second part extracted from the policy could be disputed unless (1) the mailing list says otherwise, (2) the original commenters on the article talk page say otherwise, or (3) other uninvolved users who don't usually also post to this mailing list say otherwise. However, I believe that the edit warring has happened with the same user, just with an IP, prior to now, and consensus seems to be saying that they preferred US 95.
While that editor has been right with the fact that "vandalism" was used in the wrong way, there are some bits by that specific editor that currently imply owning the article because they're native to the subject. I should've reported to AN3 about this, requested protection until disputes have been resolved, and focus on other things until the dispute has been resolved. Somehow today was one of my bad days as an editor, as I've just hastily half-left a WikiProject and could not think myself through this day. I am sorry in every way possible if others thought I was edit warring and not using the right procedures.
- -- Charli (vishwin/O)
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"
I haven't read the case, so I don't know if the admin did wrong or not.
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.
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.
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.
If this is an uncommon thing, then it's not actually a global project issue (it's localized to individuals, and cases, and best handled via DR). If it's more common, then it may need to be that some way would be needed to deter or better address cases where admins have used their access with poor judgement or with noticeable bias, or without a good balance of "benefit to the project" vs. "fairness and neutrality to individuals".
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.)
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.
My $0.02.
FT2.
-----Original Message----- On Behalf Of SPUI Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 12:04 AM Subject: [WikiEN-l] Newbie biting, the 3RR, and improper labeling of vandalism
tl;dr version: three users including two admins revert-war a newbie past 3RR; one of them blocks the newbie for it, and doesn't block one of the admins, who had also broken 3RR, because the edits - made in good faith, and possibly even good edits - were supposedly vandalism. The blocking admin insists he did nothing wrong.
Introductory links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mm555 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=U.S._Route_50&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mm555
Rschen7754 and TwinsMetsFan are admins; O is not one on en.
Mm555 appears to be a newbie, or a former IP editor, from the Carson City, Nevada area. Among his edits, he edited [[U.S. Route 50]] to add junctions with US 395 and US 95 to the infobox, and was reverted a few times, in my opinion properly, since having that many junctions for each state would make it too big. A comment was added to the infobox: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=U.S._Route_50&diff=prev&ol... 03841 stating that there were enough junctions.
A discussion on the talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:U.S._Route_50#Junctions_list_for_US_50 basically agreed that US 93 is not a major junction and US 95 would be better; US 395 was brought up but not rejected.
Mm555, after reverting a change from US 93 to US 95: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=U.S._Route_50&diff=next&ol... 58971 decided that US 395 is better and changed to that: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=U.S._Route_50&diff=next&ol... 59556
Personally, I think I agree; the US 395 and US 95 junctions are fairly close, and the US 395 junction is in Carson City, the state capital.
Rschen7754 reverted his edit "to good version", O made four reverts, and TwinsMetsFan made one. Mm555 ended up making five reverts. Rschen7754 warned him several times for vandalism, and O threw in a "Please do stop and read the guideline" ( Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Infoboxes and Navigation/Infobox , which it doesn't look like anyone linked him to); it's also about the number of junctions, not which one to choose. Nobody told him about the 3RR and nobody pointed him to the talk page discussion. TwinsMetsFan blocked him for 3RR, but did not block O.
I confronted TMF and O on IRC, and TMF said he didn't block O because O was reverting vandalism. They claimed that Mm555's edits were vandalism because he wasn't following the consensus on the talk page.
What should be done about this? The blocking admin insists he did nothing wrong; I didn't get a chance to talk with the other admin, who gave most of the warnings. Obviously Mm555 should be unblocked and apologized to, if he's not already gone. But how do we prevent this from happening again?
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:
- 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".
- 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