On 10/28/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikispam(a)inbox.org> wrote:
And yet you wouldn't call any delete war low grade
vandalism?
No I would call it a revert war
I believe
Jimbo has gone so far as to call any revert war vandalism.
Perhaps but revert wars are far harder to deal with. Wrong version may
be a joke but it is a real problem as well
Unless you
propose that we only allow admins to create pages, blank pages, or change
pages into redirects, I don't see how allowing non-admins to delete and
undelete is going to change the ability of vandals to vandalize.
I'm not worried about vandals. I worried about good uses both of whom
belive they are right. I have 4 options to use to deal with revert
wars:
:RFC-slow and not hudgely effective
:Arcom very slow is likely to view revert wars over single page as
worth its time worrying about.
:blocking. But only if they revert more than 3 times. Two sides of 4
all of whom revert twice. I can't block but that is one heck of revert
war.
So we come at last to protection. Why not just shove the thing through
AFD in the first place?
Even then,
you'd probably have to turn off the ability of non-admins to edit at all to
have much of an effect on vandalism.
There are differnces between revert wars and vandalism.
Deletion was given only to admins when adminship was
supposed to be no big
deal. Maybe if adminship were no big deal again you could restrict deletion
only to admins.
And if people would stop trying to turn us into referees perhaps it
can go back to being no big deal.
--
geni