Thirteen years later, why are most administrators still from 2005?

Re:Thirteen years later, why are most administrators still f... by whimsicalism on Thursday August 17, 2023 @03:33AM (#37158401)

If I'm seeing correctly, they did tidy it up and resubmit it - where it was then removed (I don't quite understand why - perhaps because they didn't reply to the talk saying so?).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Thirteen years later, why are most administrators still f... by Kim_Bruning on Thursday August 17, 2023 @04:24AM (#37158718)

The talk page was later. The text still needed a bunch of tidying. Could have asked the other editor to help out!

That said, that looks like quite the controversy. Adding that kind of thing to wikipedia is tricky because it can be hard to represent in a neutral way. Same sequence of events could have happened to me, or anyone else. Fortunately other editors are there to help, but you do need to talk with them.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Thirteen years later, why are most administrators still f... by whimsicalism on Thursday August 17, 2023 @05:23AM (#37159189)

Ah good catch, I missed that. I agree that they probably could have gone through WP:BRD and gotten this into the article.

The article I linked in my original comment is different though and the user Valjean maintains a number of pages that they revert edits from and don't really engage in BRD in good faith.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Thirteen years later, why are most administrators still f... by Kim_Bruning on Thursday August 17, 2023 @06:07AM (#37159483)

Would you like to look at a particular situation in detail with me?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Thirteen years later, why are most administrators still f... by Dan_Sylveste on Thursday August 17, 2023 @11:46AM (#37163472)

Without knowing which 'particular situation' you're talking about, I can just save your confusion.

There are articles in Wikipedia which will _always_ convey a certain perspective. Edits to them will always be reverted. The reverters will not engage with the audit process. The senior staff will not challenge those reverters. The procedure to handle this situation will not work. Arguments will be made that make literally no sense and will yet be accepted. If you persist in trying to make those changes your account will be banned on spurious grounds.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Thirteen years later, why are most administrators still f... by Kim_Bruning on Thursday August 17, 2023 @12:21PM (#37164071)

Well, that's not supposed to happen, obviously, not in the way you put it anyway.

But definitely give me an article/situation on Wikipedia where you feel that this is the case, and I'll take a look with you. Diffs appreciated!

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Thirteen years later, why are most administrators still f... by Dan_Sylveste on Thursday August 17, 2023 @12:31PM (#37164241)

The user whimsicalism is probably more interested in discussing this, I'd take it up with them.

I sense that this conversation will lead to a great deal of wordy justifications for the unjustifiable. I've already said that's part of the dissuasion process, I'm not interested in participating in it.

[ Parent | on HN ]