[WikiEN-l] Things about admins

[Jesse W]

On Jul 17, 2006, at 10:49 AM, Timwi wrote:

> Fastfission wrote:
>>
>> Let's not use the very subjective term "annoyed" and instead consider
>> it as a fact-finding exercise. The question is, if more than one admin
>> has found a user to have done something wrong, does that make it
>> likely that they have done something wrong?
>
> Yes, I do not deny that. Now -- if a user finds an admin to have done
> something wrong, does that make it likely that the admin has done
> something wrong?
Certainly it does.   If no-one has objected to an action, it's more 
likely that action is correct than if anyone has.  There - the rest of 
your argument has just foundered on the rock of people not behaving as 
you predicted.  Sorry.
> Obviously you'll say 'no' because there's only one user
> complaining, and everyone else sides with the admin. But read on...
As I said - sorry - you guessed wrong.

>> If the admins in question get no obvious benefit out of agreeing with
>> one another (i.e. they are not conspiring), then this is a statement
>> about the ability of independent assessments by people who are
>> classified as being "known to be reliable" to arrive at something
>> like the truth.
>
> But we have already established on this mailing list that admins *do*
> conspire, albeit on a very subtle and subconscious level, without
> knowing it. Someone (not me!) gave this analogy with noblemen in the
> Middle Ages, who rarely if ever accused each other of a crime even if
> they knew about such a crime.
Mailing list archive citation?  Or at least a name, or a subject line?  
Otherwise I'll have to consider that it *was* "you" you gave this 
analogy, with all the lack of support that entails.  In any case, 
consider this a specific, direct statement that we have NOT 
"established on this mailing list that admins *do* conspire".  Provide 
a citation if you wish to claim otherwise.

<snip>
> It is within human nature to perceive agreeing with members of one's 
> own
> social class as beneficial, and to make it harder for "lower humans" 
> who
> disagree with them to enter their class.
Wait, wait - now you are jumping to claim that admins agree with each 
other to prevent people from getting through RfA?  Evidence?  Argument? 
  Something other than "proof by assertion"?  Please?


>  Now, why is this the case? Read
> on...
>
>> The question is whether the complaints are valid. Sometimes they are.
>> Often they are not. We need to take care to differentiate between the
>> two, which I generally do on the basis of whether or not admin
>> opinions have been completely one-sided.
>
> A-ha! Doesn't this explain the above effect then? If a majority of
> admins agree with a decision, then the decision is less likely to be
> questioned (and, consequently, the complaining user is taken less
> seriously). Therefore, admins will agree with each other in order to
> reduce the likelihood of being questioned.
>  This is the "benefit of
> agreeing with each other" that you were looking for. :)
Why is this a benefit?  As far as I can see, a lack of questioning is a 
detriment to proper functioning, and the benefit of Wikipedia.

>> If all admins come to more-or-less the same conclusion, then the
>> likelihood is the complaint is "not valid" (which can mean a number
>> of things, usually "is not resonant with the way things are done on
>> Wikipedia", which is a relatively non-normative way of putting it).
>
> Now, does "the way things are done on Wikipedia" refer to the spirit of
> the policies, or the behaviour of admins in practice? We all know that
> there are significant differences between those two.
Sigh.  Not this again.  "the way things are done on Wikipedia" means 
the practices which typically occur on the website with the DNS address 
of http://en.wikipedia.org.  Drop the dead horse, please.

<snip>

> Of course it is easy for you to claim that someone has "absolutely no
> regard for policy XYZ", but surely most of the time it is more likely a
> misunderstanding of the spirit of the policy (by either side!), or just
> complete ignorance of a less obvious policy.
Well, ignorance doesn't fly after the policy has been pointed out, but 
I agree with you that misunderstandings are far more common than actual 
malice - although we get plenty of that, too.

>  It is, for example, not
> intuitive that we should have a policy on "notability" or
> "verifiability", so why should anyone look that up?
Maybe because someone else has said - "I noticed you made an edit that 
didn't agree with our policy on [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] - please 
read that page and follow it in any future edits you make.  Thanks for 
volunteering your time working on Wikipedia!" (paraphrase of one of our 
standard notes to new users).

Jesse Weinstein