How far does the power of the referees go in Numista?

First of all, I would like to make it very clear that this topic is not intended to create any kind of controversy but rather a healthy debate (if the rest of the users are interested) about what the powers of the referees are and, even, of the administrators of Numista .

First, I would like to make clear my deepest gratitude for the selfless work that we all do to have the best possible catalog and that this is not destructive criticism but rather constructive criticism to improve certain things.

That said, I have seen in many cases attempts by users to improve part of the Catalog that, even with many votes in favor, have been unilaterally rejected by the referees or administrators. Is this personal criterion above the opinion of many or several users? How can a person (even a referee) have the power to decide issues against what a majority thinks? Shouldn't there be a control mechanism also for us (the referees) and that it really be effective?

As personal cases, I have been rejected modification request without any sense (only by personal criteria) I have tried to appeal (it has not helped) and send PM to the referee in question (no response). Shouldn't there be some mechanism that limits or controls the power of unilateral decision that we referees take?

Thanks everyone for reedeing this!!!

As you said, that insider group (referees and administrators) are doing a valid job. Some times I also have the feeling that a subject from one of the different fora is rejected, although there were more positive than negative feed-backs. I also have a feeling that often those subjects are only read by a small amount of people, so if the votes are any good expression for a suggestion changing the content or the form of numista, I don't know?

The CR concerning the references are often refused without any real good reason, but normally it's possible to discuss the reason of the refusal with the referee. If not you just escalate to an administrator. We should not forget, that we're all humans and thus prone to errors and misjudgments.

Basically we agree and I support your opinion.

Hello Ole, as you say, most of the time the system works correctly and the vast majority of referees and users do an impressive job. I think we all agree on that. 

I simply wanted to propose that, in certain cases, the user-referee relationship could be made somewhat more fluid and more egalitarian, since, as you say, referees are people and as such, we can also make mistakes (which would be good if they could be controlled by some kind of mechanism)

Depending on the subject matter, sometimes the majority opinion is not correct.
This is where evidence-based argument and peer-reviewed references (which excludes wikipedia) come in.

Not responding to a PM is bad practice, and to some degree rude. I would see part of the function of a referee as always responding to a PM. This does cut both ways however, as a referee, I have sent PM to members who have submitted changes without adequate references on several occasions - I have never received a reply in these circumstances. A bit of a waste of everyone's efforts there.

Indeed, I have also submitted incorrect changes without adequate references and been quite rightly corrected by the referee in question.

Another part of the referee’s brief, as I see it, is to make us think about our proposed changes and make sure they are correct.

oynbcn

we can also make mistakes (which would be good if they could be controlled by some kind of mechanism)

While I am not commenting on the specific case, because I do not know the details, I would like to point out work of Mr. Robot in this particular case: https://en.numista.com/forum/topic78271.html In past few weeks, Robot greatly expanded the number of things it does. Some common mistakes are now simply not possible, or rather, they only last until nighly robot shift. If you know something that is reccuring and should be fixed, let me know.

I would also like our Robot friend to take care of this:

https://en.numista.com/forum/topic39997.html

Hello,

Thank you oynbcn for raising this topic in such a positive manner! The catalogue was built thanks to the great work of referees and all contributors, and it's always good to think about how we can improve.

It's a bit difficult to reply concretely without getting examples of the experience that raised your concerned, although I understand it may be preferable for the debate not to give specific example here.

There are two points we put in place to avoid having all the decision power in the hands of a single person, in order to avoid human mistakes and get multiple opinions.

The first one is the appeal button: if a contributor disagrees with the decision of the referee, they can appeal the decision, so the contribution gets a second review from a catalogue admin.

The second point is that we try to document as precisely as possible how the catalogue should be edited. The reference is the catalogue guidelines, and we also produced specific guides for topics which were debated in the past: What are the mandatory requirements for submitting a new item? and What are the criteria to accept a replacement of a photo? There is still a part of interpretation and subjectivity, and it's up to everyone (admins, referees and all contributors) to do our best to have an accurate, logical and consistent catalogue.

Hello, thanks for answering and trying to explain even if they weren't really necessary. The work carried out by administrators, referees and users of this web page is fantastic, as well as the control mechanisms that the web itself has to be able to provide a product of the highest quality. 

I think it is my duty to apologize, since I opened this topic on a bad day due to personal and health issues and with some frustration due to a couple of unresolved issues as I would have wanted here at Numista and which, obviously, I am not going to comment on here because I don't think it's necessary. 

I repeat, I'm sorry I didn't live up to it and thank you all for your incredible work. Please, Xavier, if you can, close this topic. 

Thank you all, Oscar