Matt R wrote:
--- "Alphax (Wikipedia email)"
<alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote:
And the other /other/ take-home message is that
if you're going to
revert someone, and they revert back, discuss it with them! I'm sick and
tired of finding user accounts with many many contributions which were
all reverted as "vandalism", and yet there is nothing on their talk page.
Discussing is good practice in most situations, but I think in this type of
instance the onus is on the blanker to provide some reason. If a new user
blanks an article without explanation, the odds are overwhelming that it's
vandalism (or a test, or whatever). Just revert; it's simply not worth the
time
to drop a note with such odds. Moreover, it's
very likely is that someone
with
a genuine reason to blank the article will
communicate his reason very
shortly
thereafter (did that happen in this case?)
If by "send a private email to the contact address of last resort" you
mean "communicate their reason", well, yeah. Not the most effective
method, though; it would have been far better if the person who reverted
had left a simple {{blanking}} on their talk page:
Even better, of course, would have been for the person to have used (say) the
edit summary box to give some indication of why they were blanking an
encyclopedia article. I really do feel that the onus is on them to give some
reason for their drastic action, which is otherwise indistinguishable from
hundreds of similar acts of vandalism a day.
Wikipedia: