Except that the admin involved never went back and re-did the good edits.
On 10/7/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/10/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 17:37:51 -0500, "Parker Peters" onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
In the case I quoted, there was no "blocking and then discussing on the
user
talk page", there was instead "blocking and chain reverting the unblock template and then getting someone to block them for supposed template abuse."
Name names. If it was a Zephram Stark sock, for example, then that is absolutely as it should be.
Indeed. It's often most efficient to mass-revert the sock's edits then go back and make the good ones again under one's own name. In practice, this saves other admins tracking the sockpuppeteer having to check each edit. It also nullifies gaming by trolls who say "no, no, my sock made three good edits!" "That's nice, dear. Go away."
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l