[WikiEN-l] 172--what happened

[Jimmy Wales]

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 at aol.com [mailto:daniwo59 at aol.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 10:36 PM
> To: wikien-l at 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 
> 
> 
>