On wikis, EditorialControl is simply when somebody or some group has the ultimate saying what goes in and what goes out of a page, or if the page itself stays or is deleted.

EditorialControl has both advantages and disadvantages, however this wiki has chosen to reject EditorialControl for anything other than each user's HomePage.
----
WardsWiki way of doing things is that nobody and no group whatsoever should assume editorial control, nor should fight EditWar''''''s in order to assume editorial control, nor should even create the appearance that they act as if in possession of editorial control.


''Often times, two people will fight over EditorialControl, each asserting that the other wants EditorialControl (and is thus a BadActor) while they are merely trying to restore neutrality (and is thus a GoodActor).  More often than not, both parties are full of it.''

Yeah, so what happens when one of those people then decides to nuke a page, which has OnTopic meaningful content, because they've lost control over it? Oh yeah, and they excuse their Final Solution on the basis that they're suppressing editorial control?? That has got to win some kind of prize for hypocrisy.

''If the attacker relinquish the claim to EditorialControl, the page will be restored to fairly represent opposing views and normal conversation resumed. Very easy to do. -- CostinCozianu''

Since you consider personal attacks based on AssumeWhining to be a valid "opposing view" which must be preserved, else the page deserves to be nuked ....

Deleting a page because you can't keep your personal attacks on it is the apotheosis of editorial control. -- RK

''Deciding on your own by way of summary judgement that somebody else's text can be deleted. You can't be both participant, judge and executioner, RK. If you thought those were unfair personal attacks you should have let other people to judge that and therefore win sympathy points and you should have let other intervene on your behalf or respond to the challenges by demonstrating their untruthfulness, but since '''many''' people agreed that you presented a biased interpretation of reality based on your personal motivations, you don't have much credibility left when you're both plaintiff, judge and executioner and conveniently deleted the text challenging your interpretation of reality. --Costin ''