[WikiEN-l] Re: Query admin powers

[James Rosenzweig]

I'd like to chime in on this topic: I doubt very much
that Fred was implying that certain users have a de
facto (if not de jure) status which allows them to
violate Wikipedia policy.  If Fred was, I hope he'll
explain why, but as I said, I doubt very much that he
meant this.

Instead, I think what he was pointing out is really a
very simple truth, and one that I think cannot be
fairly called "rankism" (even if it appears in some
ways to be "rankist").  Wikipedia, because of its very
nature, attracts both the good and the bad from the
Internet.  Upon a user's arrival, it is often
difficult to tell why they are here, how well-informed
they are on certain topics, what they are willing to
do in terms of finding consensus, etc.  Gradually,
water finds its own level, and it becomes obvious to
most people in the community that certain users are
unreliable, here to make trouble, etc., and that
certain other users are generally reliable, here to
contribute, etc.  "Assume good faith" is a wonderful
principle that is very important when dealing with
newcomers especially (and one we can still improve on,
I think).  It remains an important principle for
dealing with experienced editors, but with experienced
editors it can be informed by that editor's track
record.  This is not to say that _policies_ should
apply differently to experienced users, but I think
_editors_ can _choose_ to interact differently with
"old hands" and there's nothing wrong with it.

I'm not defending the protection of the page until
Adam returns -- I think it's better not to do so.  I
agree that it seems rankist.  But I don't see anything
wrong with saying that Adam has a track record (in my
opinion, and I think in the opinion of many if not
most community members) of being reliable, fairly
reasonable, and a good contributor.  Based on this, I
would be more inclined personally to give him the
benefit of the doubt, and I would advise others to do
so, simply because I know Adam's work is almost always
very good.  If he is wrong in this case, I would still
say that extending him some grace will almost surely
pay off, since having a good relationship with an
intelligent and usually accrate contributor will
almost surely help me be a better collaborator and
contributor for Wikipedia -- I can say this with
confidence based on my knowledge of Adam, which I
could not say with confidence about an unknown user
(or a new user).  It has nothing to do with elitism
and everything to do with experience.

You who are complaining about Adam's conduct may not
know him well.  You may also be seeing a side of Adam
I haven't.  Either way, I don't see that there's a
problem with a user (arbitrator or no) commenting
that, in their experience, Adam's a good fellow and a
smart one, and so even if he's wrong here it might be
a good thing to try to promote a positive and
collaborative atmosphere with him.  It may be that
Fred didn't communicate this well (or that he wasn't
trying to communicate it), but it's how I took Fred's
comment, and certainly it expresses my view of the
situation (knowing the subject matter and the dispute
not at all).  I think Fred's comments about sociology,
etc., are intended to point to the simple truth I have
tried to talk about at considerably more length (and
probably much less eloquently), which is merely that
over time a member of any group will become known in
that group, and because their conduct is well-known,
it makes sense to interact with them according to a
different set of expectations.

If I made a little joke about your writing skills, you
might never forgive me -- you don't know me.  If an
old acquaintance did, you might take the crack a
little more easily because of your history with them. 
If a man or woman you loved made the comment, you
might be able to bear it very easily (or even find it
funny), knowing as you do their experiences in life,
with writing, and how their week had gone.  Maybe
that's not a perfect analogy for the situation, but I
hope it at least illustrates somewhat the principle
here, which I don't believe has much to do with "ranks
of users".  If I'm screwing up or violating policy, I
expect to get hell for it from anybody and everybody
here -- I don't want "special treatment" and I am sure
I won't get it.  But I think I will be spoken to and
interacted with a little differently than a user who
has established a career at Wikipedia of nothing but
screw-ups and violated policies, and I don't think
that's a bad thing -- it's the nature of human
interaction.

Sorry so long -- as usual my comments have probably
outlasted the attention of the mailing list.  Happy
new year to all who observe the Gregorian calendar,

James R.
en:User:Jwrosenzweig

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com