QUOTE(mbz1 @ Sun 29th January 2012, 11:34pm)
I also have question to Encyclopedist. It is a general question.
Do you agree that no block ever should be imposed by
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:INV...Involved_admins ?
For my understanding of involved admin you could read
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_fo...s_when_involved and if you'd like to, I'd interested to hear your opinion on the blocks described in this section.
I'll answer this. No, I don't agree, and I wrote extensively on this on Wikiversity, mostly to no effect.
The question, properly, is not involvement, but appearance of involvement, and this has been poorly understood. Whenever there is a reasonable appearance of involvement, an administrator should *routinely* recuse. Recusal would mean that the administrator, instead of directly acting, would request action, as if they were not an administrator.
I claimed that it would be enough for a user to *claim* bias to create a recusal requirement. However, a general claim that all administrators are biased would be of no effect. Rather, it would be specific. A user should not be able to make themselves unblockable by claiming bias on the part of all administrators, or all available administrators.
I wrote similarly on ArbComm pages, in RfAr/Abd and William M. Connolley, and the cabal claimed that this would be wikilawyered by editors to no end. False claim. In practice, it would simply mean that an administrator could not unilaterally maintain a block against a complaining editor. One administrator, and then another, or at most a defined list, which would be a small fraction of the total administrative corps. By the time an editor had been blocked a few times, they'd be indeffed, if they really were committing offenses and not responding to warnings.
Because of the existence of factions, who do back each other up, almost knee-jerk, this policy would still not be quite enough, but there are other measures that would identify factions and interdict collaborative blocking. ArbComm was utterly uninterested in proposals that would actually implement policy. They have long been far more interested in protecting those whom they see as the core volunteers, i.e., people like them. Administrators.
In any case, I also laid out procedures for emergency action in the presence of a recusal requirement. Basically, any administrator could declare an "emergency," a situation where delay in action could reasonably be asserted as causing harm. The administrator, in this situation, would block to prevent harm, but would immediately recuse and would further notify the administrative corps, in a neutral way, that they had blocked and recused. They would be inviting review, and would be obligated to avoid wheel-warring, and undoing their block would not be considered wheel-warring, itself. It would be an independent judgment, for which the new blocking administrator would be responsible.
Absent guidelines like this, administrators are at sea, without a compass. Development of such guidelines has been restricted, for obvious reasons. People don't like to be restricted, and often don't understand that restrictions bring a different kind of freedom. Sane recusal policy would avoid a great deal of unnecessary conflict.
But the Wikipediots aren't sane. They are obsessed with their own power, and don't understand how true community power would operate. The "community" they "enjoy" is one of independent actors who only coordinate accidentally, for the most part, each serving his or her own purpose. They imagine, many of them, that they have a common purpose, which vanishes when one leans on it.
Humans are designed to form functional communities, face to face, it's instinctive. Text can weakly imitate that, but only where the missing communication -- which is mostly non-verbal, and high-bandwidth -- is supplied by imagination. It works, sort of, where the imaginations are sufficiently coincidental. The rapport generated is imaginary, though, and easily corrupted.