I had remembered reading this once but when searching for it just now the only copy was in Evan's namespace, and presumably therefore a draft. I'll appologise to Evan in advance for pushing the draft out here, but I think this is an important subject. Sometimes it seems like us regular contributors are a bit quick to "correct" newbies, or casual editors. That can have the effect of scaring them away which is exactly the opposite of what we want to do.
I know that this runs up against another rule about "avoiding broken windows" but still... there's a difference between contributions made in good faith which need MoS work, contributions made in good faith which don't quite fit existing policy, and obvious vandalism. I think we should try to assume good faith even in really borderline cases.
So if this page already exists somewhere.. sorry, my bad. Otherwise can we discuss the concept at least? -- (WT-en) Mark 06:58, 9 May 2004 (EDT)
- I've just read the current policy page and it's opened my eyes to what is wrong with some of the current "Big Beasts" reverting good faith edits without bothering to discuss them.
- This article certainly is powerful stuff and should be re-read by every long term editor at least twice a year.
- Kudos to Evan, our "Adam"! --W. Franke-mailtalk 15:41, 30 September 2012 (CEST)
Why aren't patrollers listed here? The role is a bit more than "dedicated editors" as this is just that, but patrolling newbie's edits and rollbacking vandalism. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 01:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)