Except that the admin involved never went back and re-did the good edits.
On 10/7/06, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 07/10/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 17:37:51 -0500, "Parker
>In the case I quoted, there was no
"blocking and then discussing on the
>talk page", there was instead
"blocking and chain reverting the unblock
>template and then getting someone to block them for supposed template
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."
WikiEN-l mailing list
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: