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(a)aol.com [mailto:daniwo59@aol.com] Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 10:36 PM To: wikien-l(a)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