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