Phrased this way, it doesn't sound so bad. I would advise against doing "one small edit" unless you haven't taken part in the debate to that point.
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Danny did nothing wrong. I intend to follow his example.
If I see people fighting over an article, I'm going to protect it and tell them to chill out.
AND I reserve the right to choose which "old version" to revert to.
AND FURTHERMORE, if I can figure out a neutral way to fix the article, I see no ethical reason not to:
- make ONE edit
- describe it on the talk page
- and report what I did to this mailing list
Ed Poor
-----Original Message----- From: daniwo59@aol.com [mailto:daniwo59@aol.com] Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 10:36 PM To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] 172--what happened
Actually, Eric, I disagree.
Trolling is a form of vandalism. This could justly be interpretted as trolling. (I am reminded of the constant edit wars with Helga, which cost Wikipedia quite a lot in terms of time and people who were disgusted and left)
For me to just ask some other "neutral" sysop to do it instead of me is hardly a neutral step.
I was not involved in an edit war. It was not an article that I care too deeply about. I was protecting it from what I (continue to) perceive as trolling.
Given the situation with Lir/.Vera Cruz/Susan Mason as well as Michael/Weezer and 172, perhaps its time sysops took more steps to limit trolling and not just the "George Washington had big balls" kind of vandalism. I open that for discussion.
Danny