Sat 16th April 2011, 10:59pm
QUOTE(JWSchmidt @ Tue 12th April 2011, 4:18pm)
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Mon 11th April 2011, 2:17pm)
it's frankly none of your business.
What I expect to hear from a sysop who calls good faith edits "vandalism".
Jimbo dun learned these boys good how to falsify log entries.
This can, and will, go on forever. Jimbo is almost totally irrelevant now, as to Wikiversity (and all this is about Wikiversity, really).
"Falsification of log entries" is JWS-speak for a log entry or edit summary that JWS thinks is wrong. Adambro, in another place, used rollback to remove a JWS edit from the top of a Wikiversity policy page, which was, indeed, vandalism. That is, an edit which defaces the page, subverting it from its purpose, to make a political point. JWS made a huge stink about "rollback is only for vandalism," which counts as a peak example of pure wikilawyering, since the exact tool used to revert an edit is about as significant as bird poop.
Rollback is discouraged from use for non-vandalism because it leaves behind a single, non-explanatory edit summary, and rollback guidelines deprecate this. But when the reason for the reversion is patently clear, there is no need for a detailed edit summary. The substance of the policy is satisfied, if not the letter. Yet JWS has repeated this argument, and has given the example, God knows how many times.
It's all about him, I agree with SBJ.
It is possible for there to be "good faith vandalism." That's the missing element in JWS' logic.
the extent of administrative abuse were making incorrect edit summaries! But sometimes these summaries that JWS complains about aren't clearly incorrect, and the making of "correct edit summaries" isn't the goal of editorial work, it's merely a support for part of it. It is difficult or cumbersome to correct edit summaries, and if they were that
important, that would be fixed.
And if an edit is made in a place where it is obviously inappropriate, where it will definitely be reverted, and the editor knows this and has no overriding policy reason to make the edit, that's a form of vandalism