And when "troublemaker" is in the eye of whoever is being a POV warrior, it
becomes a tool of edit warring.
Just like the "block" button in the hand of some recent Admins has been a
tool of revert warring and asserting dominance.
They pay NO attention to the fact that blocks are not supposed to be
punitive. Instead, we have hags like Ambi who take PRIDE in the fact that
they are doling out punishments to those who cry foul over their abuse of
power.
From: Angela <beesley(a)gmail.com>
Reply-To: Angela <beesley(a)gmail.com>,English Wikipedia
<wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
To: Dan Grey <dangrey(a)gmail.com>,English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Intention of Rollback
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 14:57:41 +0200
On 7/1/05, Dan Grey <dangrey(a)gmail.com> wrote:
What was the original purpose of the Rollback -
purely to revert
vandalism? And is it considered bad form to use it to revert
good-faith edits by other editors (not troublemakers)?
I asked a similar question (a very long wikitime ago)
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Administrators/Archive_4#Question_on_use_of_Rollback_button>
Brion replied:
"Its intent is solely to be a timesaving shortcut for reverting
mass vandalism."
Reverting good faith edits without explanation shouldn't be done, and
the rollback prevents any explanation, giving the impression that you
are viewing the other person's edits as vandalism, so I would suggest
that it is bad form to use it in that way.
Angela.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________
Millions of quality singles are online now - click to meet them!
http://match.msn.ie