On 12/25/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com> wrote:
now for four or five days). Rather, I think that the
NOEDITSECTION
was an imposition that disproportionately hit legitimate editors of
the article, while delivering no measurable reduction of vandalism in
the face of a sustained campaign of vandalism by a particular person
or group--the kind of campaign that I know from experience can be
ignored, because it has little of no effect on the ability of good
faith editors to continue their work.
That's a nice change - most of the complaints at GWB seem to be the
opposite: people complaining that a small number of legitimate editors
were being blocked along with the vast numbers of vandals, and they
thought *that* was unfair :)
Steve