Experiment traps incompetence in admins, what happened next?

[CrowsNest]

The Wikipediots are currently arguing over how to handle hopeless drafts. A speedy deletion criteria, G13, already exists to delete stale drafts. It is a simple yes/no test - has it been edited in the last six months? A sceptical Wikipedian decided to prove that before they get into the weeds and make new policy, they should know the current policy is already widely abused. He designed an experiment, erroneously tagging articles for G13. Two administrators were found to have deleted four pages without even checking if the tag was appropriate, or failing to spot it was. It all happened in an out of the way area, so no real chance of external scrutiny of how it all really works occuring, which is now they like it........

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... experiment)

What happened next is typical of Wikipedia. An Arbitrator no less, roundly attacked the editor for his disruption, and explained that in their view, which carries significant weight as an Arb, it's an "underlying assumption" that taggers have done the required checks, and besides, their experiment proved nothing because of its small sample size. They stopped short of saying this means Admins can just mindlessly mash the buttons and let the complaints department deal with any mistakes, but it's hard to read their comment as anything but an endorsement of this view. The admins themselves faced no action, they didn't even feel the need to bother to turn up and explain or apologise. Neither was sent away for reeducation, or even asked if this was a momentary skip or a hard wired problem. Then Beeblebrox just shut the whole thing down as a distraction.

This is a salutary lesson in Wikipedia governance/ethics. Process and procedure doesn't mean much to these people, right up to the highest levels, and certainly not if it gets in the way of what they think is necessary pragmatism. Speedy deletion is about taking out the trash, and it is big job. So big I guess they don't much care about minimising mistakes, even though that obviously causes editors, particularly n00bs, to become confused or disillusioned or downright angry. If so, they really should make that clear in policy/procedure as well as common practice, because preventing mistakes is really the only reason Administrators are supposed to check a tag has been placed legitimately, before hitting delete.

As someone said in the debate, someone like Fastily being inattentive in this area, can have serious repercussions, given their love of using automation to make the process of garbage disposal resemble an exercise in global thermonuclear war. They have a long history of treating the backstop procedure as the first and only line of defence against mistakes. Nobody has ever really cared. Out of sight, out of mind.

[AndrewForson]

If one wanted to remove untouched drafts in a robotic manner, would it not have made sense to have the task done by, er, a robot? So why would one not do that? One possible answer is simple dim-wittedness, I suppose. But another would be that the game requires a plethora of easy tasks at every level that can be carried out in a more-or-less mindless way (while watching television, or drunk/stoned) to feed the addiction.

[CrowsNest]

Oh look, the same admin......

Subject to removing links to the guy's silly YouTube videos the page might be acceptable. But he is indefinitely blocked so why should he be allowed a user page? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

So, you can probably see how a guy who thinks like this, probably isn't accidentally deleting other mistagged pages out of a lack of due diligence, but more likely because he personally doesn't think they should exist......and has the means at his disposal to make that happen. He is, after all, justifying why a page he has already deleted, should stay deleted.

Nobody said a thing in reply, to correct this Administrator's faulty assumptions. He wasn't given the deletion tools because people thought he personally had good judgement over what should and should not be deleted. He was given them for his trusted ability to follow the deletion policy. And that policy most certainly does not support "he is indefinitely blocked so why should he be allowed a user page" or anything remotely like that.

Just another day in the incompetence and corruption factory.

They're obviously going to succeed in ensuring this user stays off Wikipedia in his current incarnation, because the place is so blind to its own corruptions, and none of that is changeable by outsiders. They obviously won't succeed in preventing him returning to fuck with them even more. Indeed, this Administrator has probably just guaranteed it will happen. Might as well create the LTA page now, you dimwits.