On 10/9/06, Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/9/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 14:14:02 -0400, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
The most egregious account I've seen was brought to us a few days
ago, where
an admin blocked a user and then tag-teamed with a non-admin to
repeatedly
remove the user's unblock requests, and finally got a third party to
lock
the user's talk page for "unblock abuse."
Diffs?
My thoughts exactly. "Parker Peters"' last example turned out to be an unambiguous vandalism sock. I'm beginning to wonder if perhaps Parker Peters isn't better known to us by another name...
"Unambiguous"? Hardly. Unless you didn't bother to read my reply earlier?
Your definition of "vandalism" seems to be that you disagree with an edit. That's not a definition of "vandalism" that anyone at Wikipedia is supposed to follow, and the last person I met who followed that was a definite pov warrior.
Parker
Re-reading my own comments, this might have been phrased in a less flammatory manner. If I crossed a line, I apologize.
However, I still take issue with your calling what I believe to be good-faith and sourced edits vandalism, especially when the same sources are just fine for another related article on the same topic.
I don't believe we can allow ourselves to fall into the trap of calling any edit we disagree with "vandalism", or we do the whole project a disservice.
Parker