Board Thread:Support Requests - Community Management/@comment-452-20150123132337/@comment-452-20150124163346

JosephHawk wrote:

I don't see how it's too big of an issue. It's only a few days... Then I guess it's a matter of core philosophy. In my home, when something gets spilled, I clean it up immediately. After all, "rollback" exists so vandalism can reverted as fast as possible.

You mentioned the VTSF, but in my experience, their policy is "shoot first, don't ask questions, and never apologise for deleting valid pages which should have been reverted."

I respect your opinion, and my response in no way constitutes an attempt to "argue" or "change your mind". Thanks for your reply! Tupka217 wrote:

But if it's an indiscriminate, full site delete Yes. I used different terms in each question so as not to be repetitive, perhaps I should have been more clear with Q2.

I respect your opinion, and my response in no way constitutes an attempt to "argue" or "change your mind". Thanks for your reply! Imamadmad wrote:

But until it can be proved that the admin was not acting in good faith, good faith should always be assumed. Thanks for detailed response. You're correct that my hypothetical did not address all nuances.

I think that discovering 12 hours afterwards that an admin has deleted every single page and image, without any announcement or edit summary, and then has not make any further edits proves that the admin was not acting in good faith.

Imamadmad wrote:

If there is no community because the wiki is in effect dead, then the admin is the only community member and can in effect do what they like, but only in the cases of otherwise unoccupied wikis. As an admin on a smaller wiki where few users take part in discussions, I do not believe that I can do what I like, and I've always made announcements of my intentions.

I respect your opinion, and my response in no way constitutes an attempt to "argue" or "change your mind". Thanks for your reply!