[WikiEN-l] Things about admins

[Guy Chapman aka JzG]

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 17:52:53 +0100, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:


>I notice that many of these admin's accounts of such events look very 
>similar. Is it very hard for you to imagine that the other side of the 
>story looks different? 

Not at all.  I am a Christian, I know exactly how it feels to be
absolutely *certain* about something which others reject out of hand,
and demand proof of a sort which cannot be provided.

>You say he was "absolutely determined to add 
>[...]" - well, maybe he thought he was adding "the truth" or 
>"encyclopedic information"? You say he "flatly refused to engage in 
>talk" - well, maybe he was new and didn't know about talk pages, or 
>thought you were referring to this User-talk page? 

Yes, he thinks he was adding The Truth [TM].  He started an ArbCom
case, in fact (so far rejected 0/3/0).

He believes that the only neutral portrayal of the doping allegations
against Lance Armstrong is to present every single allegation, to note
that friends and team-mates have been convicted, and to play down the
fact that Armstrong has, thus far, won or had dropped every court
case, including one against the Sunday Times which hinges on precisely
the issue in dispute: the ST implied that Armstrong was guilty of
doping, rather than there being grounds for suspicion.  And even when
that fact was inserted he "balanced" it by saying that Armstrong lost
an appeal to have a retraction printed (I don't think many people get
that remedy through the courts), without mentioning that the ST made a
full apology.  

Edit summary "Armstrong lost at court" (no he didn't, he won)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Walsh_%28sports_reporter%29&diff=prev&oldid=64308854

Or how about this gem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Walsh&diff=prev&oldid=63768888

>--- And what about 
>all the stuff that you left out of your account, such as the wording of 
>your messages to him, or the edit summary of the reverts? I don't know 
>about your specific case, but many admins use words like "vandalism" or 
>"POV-pushing" very liberally and pretend like it's perfectly within 
>their rights to do so and to ban anyone who doesn't like it.

I have apologised for being obnoxious to him (which I was).  He has
yet to accept that the idea of [[WP:BLP]] has any merit at all.

>> I think people are used to forums and Usenet where proof by assertion
>> is a valid technique and where saying the same thing only louder will
>> very often work.

>Admins get away with that all the time.

When it is "stop blanking articles" or "stop posting defamatory
content" that is not really a surprise....

>> The idea of sitting down and talking calmly about it often does not
>> appear to occur to these people.

>Do you think the user's impression of the blocking admin is that of 
>someone who likes to sit down and talk calmly about it?

Dunno.  I talk calmly to blocked people all the time.  Not always, but
often.

>>>That's a tautology. Someone who is blocked hardly has any chance to be 
>>>(and, in most cases, any interest in being) at all productive. What 
>>>percentage of people that are blocked and never return, would have been 
>>>genuinely productive if they hadn't been blocked? How can you tell?

>> SPUI.

>There you go, so examples do exist. 

Indeed.  If I didn't believe POV-pushers could be saved I'd
indef-block them all on sight, wouldn't I?

>Maybe I think this way because I was treated that way on my very first 
>day. Although admittedly I didn't get blocked or anything, I did make a 
>good-faith contribution which was, within minutes, deleted (the correct 
>action would have been to turn it into a redirect). Not knowing that 
>someone consciously deleted it (there was nothing to indicate this, and 
>to this day there still isn't anything to indicate this to newbies, so 
>the first impression is a technical glitch), I recreated it and 
>subsequently received a warning of sorts.

A specific issue which should be addressed.  When recreating a
previously deleted article, I think the interface should say "are you
sure you want to create this, if was deleted on DDDD by X for reason
Y" or words to that effect.  I'm sure it would help.

Also, more of us (editors and admins) should userfy rather than
deleting non-notable  autobiographies, and maybe any vanity content. I
made {{nn-userfy}} for that,

Guy (JzG)
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG