Board Thread:Wiki Discussions/@comment-25075055-20140524161539/@comment-1207741-20140524195846

Speysider wrote: Snapper, if you bothered to look at the contributions I did bother. I would appreciate it if you stopped assuming everyone is lazy.

Speysider wrote: for those users who I identified as "making vandalism edits", you would realise the edits were indeed vandalism. Vandalism is the clear and deliberate attempt to do harm, which none of those users were doing:
 * - Made a completely valid addition that Obito's Sharingan is also Kakashi's. That the wiki has chosen not to make that distinction is not the user's fault.
 * - Made an observation that was not wrong. The observation was unnecessary, but it was not wrong.
 * - Was trying to correct a lapse in the coding.
 * - I don't know the user's motives, but I find no malicious intent. It's not an edit that should be rollbacked, at least.
 * - Attempting to keep the wiki consistent; Zetsu is listed as a jinchuriki and he survived his beast's removal. Reversion should be explained.
 * - Well-intentioned, evidenced by the fact that they stopped once it was explained why what they were doing was wrong. Unwelcomed, irritating contribution, but not "vandalism".
 * - The user gave a valid reason for removing the paragraph. You should give a valid reason for its restoration.
 * - Again, not something that you should rollback. I realize Suigetsu is already linked in the infobox, but what's the harm in another link? Because most jutsu articles are shorter than their infoboxes, a link in the article's body is likely to appear before the link in the infobox.

Speysider wrote: or in some cases, redundant edits that would break things Rather than use the rollback button or give them a thoughtless warning template, you could explain to the users why what they were doing was undesirable.

Speysider wrote: Oh that's right, because the person who did the edits was me and we all know that some of you who have voted Oppose are people who personally dislike me. I'm relying on diffs because I want to be impartial. You are making things personal by dismissing what I say as bias rather than try to address the points I raised. Just yesterday you gave Cerez grief because he's using rollback incorrectly. Should you, someone who wants to be a sysop, not be expected to answer to the same issue?