On 19/10/06, Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Assume good faith is a fine principle, but the suggestion here seems to be that editors must engage every such page blanker in dialogue based on the remote chance that they just might have a good reason for doing it, even though they didn't bother giving it at the time. That just doesn't seem worthwhile to me; the effort involved seems disproportionate to any possible harm.
No, the suggestion that kicked this off is that editors should eyeball the material which was blanked to check that *it itself* isn't vandalism or other miscellanous undesirableness before automatically reverting. I've spotted a few cases in the past where someone has rolled back to vandalism because someone helpfully tried to remove it; I suspect I may have done it myself.
The issue here isn't that someone blanked their own page and was reverted without us talking to them. The issue is that someone blanked their own page *containing blatant crap* and was reverted for it; the issue is that, to outsiders, this sort of not-quite-paying-attention error looks and feels like *we're* actively trying to push this stuff about them.