User talk:2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:E454:D78D:E92F:E1E6

My Cop-Bot Record: 114 Reverts/Hour !!! Beat that, sukas!

YAHOO!
Who says my KopBot 9000 is overpowered, making normal people act like inconsiderate, destructive bullies and needs regulation?
VROOM-VROOOM!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reverting Shortcuts WP:RV WP:REV

This page in a nutshell: Revert vandalism on sight, but revert an edit made in good faith only with an explanation and after careful consideration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reverting#When_to_revert When to revert WP:QUO

Revert only when necessary Reverting is appropriate mostly for vandalism or other disruptive edits. If you see a good-faith edit which you feel does not improve the article, make a good-faith effort to reword instead of reverting it. If there is a dispute, editors should work towards consensus.

Explain reverts Shortcut WP:REVEXP Edit summaries, always a good practice, are particularly important when reverting. Provide a valid and informative explanation including, if possible, a link to the Wikipedia principle you believe justifies the reversion. Try to remain available for dialogue, especially in the half-day or so after reverting.

A reversion is a complete rejection of the work of another editor and if the reversion is not adequately supported then the reverted editor may find it difficult to assume good faith. This is one of the most common causes of an edit war. A substantive explanation also promotes consensus by alerting the reverted editor to the problem with the original edit. The reverted editor may then be able to revise the edit to correct the perceived problem. The result will be an improved article, a more knowledgeable editor and greater harmony.
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:E454:D78D:E92F:E1E6 (talk) 01:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)E1E6

The conversation at Talk:Usenet ‎ →‎Reinstating edits after undo, inspired this reveal of seeming "secret" Wiki philosophy, tone, and guidelines. Seemingly WP:RV was new info to everybody there. As hinted here, uninformed, inconsiderate, rude, Cop-Bot powered Undo-Reverters are making Wikipedia an unpleasant place to attempt improvement. That constant inconsiderate rudeness reflects on Wikipedia.

Besides the immediate obstruction of Wikipedia improvement, this kind of general harassment (mean, uninformed, or negligent) because of technical errors and imperfections, degrades the quality of Wikipedia overall. It shifts the surviving editors' values and goals away from explanation and communication of feel, facts and concepts etc, —(teaching)— to being 100% error free, —a schoolboy's goal judged by tests. I've never heard being "100% error free" used as a complement. (Except as passive-aggressive sarcasm.) (Here is a perfect error free statement: "Some categories exist.") Authors are becoming afraid to be specific or use clear language, but pollute their language with complex unclear conditionals and vagueness, lawyer-style; it's nit-pick-proof. Who needs that, —Writer or Reader?

The info from WP:RV that seemed to surprise everybody was WP:QUO in a nutshell, politeness & weaselness gone: —Wikipedia recognizes that Revert is a powerful inconsiderate, mean nasty destructive tool. Therefore it should only be used on inconsiderate, mean nasty destructive trolls or on destructive posts mean or not. — I believe Wikipedia should enforce and regulate that. (I can learn much about User's histories, but not regarding Undos.)

Another way such rude nit-picking over technical imperfections ruins Wikipedia quality is by weeding out experts or communicators and teachers intolerant of little powerful, bored authoritarian technocrats constantly fucking real hard with their efforts. Naturally, actual bullies would be attracted to "non-member newbies" like me. Giving the Revert-Slingers Cop-Bots?   — Is Wikipedia nuts!? --2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:3044:A2C3:2683:987B (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)E1E6

---