[WikiEN-l] Re: A user seems to have spent the day reverting articles which appeared to be legitamite edits

[R E Broadley]

Dear Rick,

You misunderstand me, but it's ok, most people do, so I won't take it 
personally. I'm not sure what you mean by me being on the mailing list 
anonymously, is my name or email address hidden?

I would say this. Power corrupts, and without adequate self-analysis, 
one can become arrogant, throw their weight around, and revert any edits 
on the spot just because they didn't understand what the person had 
written. Your Chicago edit today for instance, if you'd merely clicked 
on the "world city" article, you would have been able to find out what 
an "alpha world city" is, but instead you just removed the word "alpha" 
from the article, because you weren't familiar with the term. At least 
you gave a reason in your edit comments though, which is an improvement, 
so thanks, I was then able to reword the article with the knowledge of 
why it had been changed.

Regards,
Ed

Rick wrote:

>It was no mistake.  This person is a troll.  This is the same person who came onto the mailing list as an anon, expressing amazement that his edits to the September 11 attacks page were reverted.  His wide-eyed innocent act doesn't fool me.  He's already filed an RfC on me even though I explained to him on his Talk page why I had acted in the manner I did on the edits he's questioning.  I have no desire to continue discussion with him.
> 
>RickK
>
>"KNOTT, T" <tknott at qcl.org.uk> wrote:
>Some admins watch recent changes, and have vandalism in progress on
>their watchlists. Other don't. Rick is one of the former. In fact, he
>deals with vandalism a lot! His user page regularly gets vandalised, and
>his talk page regularly gets messages from vandals that he has blocked
>(Who are trying to troll him, or merely expressing an opinion about his
>sexuality, or his mothers sexuality etc ;-). He probably mistook you for
>one. 
>
>Theresa
>  
>