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

Fri Nov 26 13:12:45 UTC 2004

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

-----Original Message-----
From: R E Broadley [mailto:20041111 at stardate.freeserve.co.uk] 
Sent: 26 November 2004 11:37
Cc: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: A user seems to have spent the day
revertingarticles which appeared to be legitamite edits

And the fact that he deleted the contents of his talk page as soon as 
I'd started this discussion with him also seemed suspicious to me. Why 
would he delete our discussion unless he had something to hide?

R E Broadley wrote:

> Tim,
>
> One of us is interpreting the diff displays backwards. I thought it 
> was RickK doing the deleting, (including the deletion of the
asterisk).
>
> I shall double-check.
>
> Apologies in advance if it was me reading it wrong, although from one 
> of the comments RickK said to me, he did actually confirm that he was 
> removing stuff, which reinforced my belief that I was interpreting the

> diff logs correctly.
>
> Regards,
> Edmund
>
> Tim Starling wrote:
>
>> R E Broadley wrote:
>>
>>> When I went back to the users talk page, I noticed that they had 
>>> deleted
>>> their talk page, along with the recent discussion on the reverts,
but
>>> thanks to Wikipedia history, I managed to capture the URL of a
version
>>> where the discussion was still there. It is here below:-
>>>
>>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:RickK&oldid=7859165
#Articles_reverted_but_no_reason_given 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The reverts in question look fine to me. The edits were:
>>
>> * Unexplained removal of text saying that the gospels were "compiled 
>> from a much larger literature in 327AD under the orders of 
>> Constantine the Great", rolled back
>> * Sneaky removal of an asterisk, breaking a bulleted list, rolled
back
>> * Unexplained deletion of a paragraph, rolled back
>>
>> This isn't a violation of policy. I think it's odd that Rebroad 
>> characterised these edits as follows:
>>
>> "I appreciate there were spelling mistakes that were obvious to you, 
>> but I'm guessing they weren't obvious to the person who put some 
>> effort into adding the additional information. And if you felt it was

>> biased, couldn't you have let them know this also?"
>>
>> RickK was not correcting spelling or removing biased information, he 
>> was reverting deletion. I think he was well within his rights to 
>> remove this  complaint from his talk page. I wouldn't mind if the 
>> complainant was removed from this mailing list either.
>>
>> -- Tim Starling
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l