[WikiEN-l] Re: me and my three reverts

Wed Feb 2 22:07:09 UTC 2005

Pete/Pcb21 (pete_pcb21_wpmail at pcbartlett.com) [050203 08:47]:
> Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:

> >Yes, and there are some good reasons to interpret it fairly literally,
> >while at the same time leaving a little breathing room for common
> >sense recognition that randomly changing one irrelevant word in a
> >different part of the article is still a revert.

> The problem with interpretations and hundreds of admins is that it only 
> needs one admin with a "hardline" attitude for the user to be blocked 
> (however temporarily). Under the current model, the will of the mass of 
> the community is irrelevant, it is the outlying opinions that have most 
> weight.

Other admins have the option of unblocking an egregious block.

And, you know, editors have the option of not reverting more than three
times in a day.

- d.