[Foundation-l] Issues regarding admin(s?) on wikinews, effects: globally

[Ray Saintonge]

Jimmy Wales wrote:

>Ilya Haykinson wrote:
>  
>
>>Ok, I'm really confused. There has indeed been some heated editing on
>>Wikinews which caused the departure of one admin (who I hope will come
>>back someday) and the temporary banning of another for violating the
>>3RR -- not an unusual thing.
>>    
>>
>Why is 3RR regarded as bannable policy on Wikinews?  It seems unlikely
>to be needed at this early stage, and certainly if it was adopted
>incautiously from English Wikipedia, this is a decision which should be
>reconsidered.
>  
>
I'm happy to say that after going through our deletion process 3RR was 
deleted from Wiktionary.  During the discussion there was only one 
incident mentioned where it might have been a factor, and on 
investigation even that one turned out to be factually doubtful.

The underlying issue is not so much the specifics of the 3RR, as it is a 
question of how policies become policies.  Some time ago someone acting 
in perfectly good faith managed to import the policy from Wikipedia.  He 
evidently was acting pro-actively to solve what he felt could be an 
eventual problem.  There was no current problem.  Their might not be 
such a problem for a long time. 

A rule proposal for a non-eixting problem is not likely to get much 
attention, but if it sits there unquestioned for a year or more until a 
relevant occasion arises it will be assumed that it is official policy 
just because it has never been questioned.  Literalists, who perhaps 
were not even there when the proposal was first made, then try to 
enforce the rule; that's when the arguments start.

To be workable, rules must reflect a community, not the other way 
around.  Wikipedia, as the senior project, has developed many rules 
which (presumably ;-) ) work there.  There is no doubt a story there 
about each one, but the fact that the rule had an 80% vote in favour on 
Wikipedia is not a convincing argument when trying to adopt the same 
rule on Wikinews or Wiktionary.  If anything it will breed resentment 
and crieas of cabalistic behaviour.

There has to be an art to acting boldly.  Acting boldly and decisively 
is often a necessity to prevent a project from descending into 
paralysis, but the person doing so better have a damn good reason for 
doing it if challenged.  At least some elements of it should be 
reversible if the challenge turns out to have some validity.  Acting 
boldly does not mean acting hastily, but acting only after others have 
had an opportunity to be heard. 

Ec