At 08:31 AM 6/18/2008, Carl Beckhorn wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 11:47:40AM -0400, David Goodman
wrote:
This is a proposal that will encourage
administrators to not act
responsibly, by destroying the principle that an administrative action
can be overturned by another administrator.
Independent of BLP issues, that principle has always been a problem.
Permitting any admin to unilaterally reverse any other admin's action
harms the collegiality of the admin corps and undermines the individual
responsibility of administrators. When it is clear that the original
admin would not agree to having their actions reversed, discussion is in
order, not unilateral reversal.
Actually, no. How the Wikipedia system works has often been missed.
Any admin can reverse any admin's decision, and this is a protection.
Essentially, any admin may unilaterally take an action, thus allowing
many actions to be taken with no discussion. If there is no
opposition, then it's done, which is highly efficient. This, by the
way, is not as far from standard democratic process in direct
democracies as we might think.
But if there is an objection, properly, the original action shouldn't
stand, until and unless it is confirmed. Procedurally, courtesy would
suggest discussion before reversing what an admin has done, but that
discussion, for efficiency, could be confined to the original admin
and one who disagrees. It should not require appeal to a broader
circle to reverse an opposed action, for it is quite possible that
the original aministrator will decide that it's not worth the fuss.
But once an admin action has been reversed once, both the original
admin and the reversing admin shouldn't touch it again, any further
action should require yet another admin, and broadening circles of
discussion. A single reversal of an admin action isn't wheel-warring.
Repeated reversals, by the same admin, are. Wikipedia, when it works,
gathers together, ad-hoc, sufficient numbers of editors that a
community consensus becomes apparent.
BLP policy may set certain biases in this process, there can be a
bias toward removal of controversial information, pending appeal.
ArbComm, however, seems to be setting too high a standard, one of
"clear consensus." That's dangerous, and is well-known, in consensus
organizations, to lead to a kind of dictatorship of the minority.
Rather, that's what we have ArbComm for, to make decisions when
consensus isn't clear. It would seem that ArbComm is attempting to
replace its function with rigid rules, which is why I noted that it
seems they've lost their collective mind, and they seem to be moving
beyond their franchise.
ArbComm can issue temporary injunctions; indeed, a procedure could be
that any ArbComm member can issue such an injunction, which can be
cancelled by another, leading to a broader decision if necessary. So
if ArbComm wants to set up some operating rules to govern BLP issues,
it can easily do it. It is setting up rigid rules that change how the
community traditionally operates, without finding consensus for that
in the community, that's a problem.
Here is the collision that could take place, if the guideline is
accepted: a majority of editors believe that some information is
properly sourced and balanced and belongs in an article. (and I mean
by "majority," a majority of those who are informed on the issue).
Similarly, there is a majority of administrators. But this could be
short of "clear consensus." An admin takes the information out and
protects the article. After discussion -- which wouldn't even be
necessary with a non-BLP issue, for protecting a favored version is
generally a big no-no -- another admin sees support for putting it
back in, and does it. Is ArbComm going to allow some kind of
automatic blocking or desysopping for a good-faith action by an
administrator taken with majority support? Is it going to reverse all
prior practice and desysop that admin itself, based on a violation of
the new rules it set?
What I'd see as proper and not conflicting with the legitimate goals
of the proposal is that any admin who has not previously touched the
article would, once, take the allegedly offending information out.
Given the conditions (the existence of controversy, and mere majority
support for it being in), it shouldn't be difficult to find such an
admin, and quickly. The proper BLP bias would at this point suggest
much broader discussion before putting it back in; and, if
controversy continued, ArbComm could step in with an injunction,
quickly, and then consider the case in more deliberative fashion.
I think we need to understand and respect how Wikipedia works, first,
before fixing it. What I've described as proper already exists or
could be made to be so by unilateral action by administrators or
members of ArbComm. I'd consider it proper for any member of ArbComm
to issue a preliminary injunction that would stand,pending a
decision, unless opposed by a majority of arbitrators (it could thus
shift back and forth a little, if the matter is truly controversial
within ArbComm, as Arbitrators show up and weigh in on it.)