On 24 February 2010 12:54, Rob <gamaliel8(a)gmail.com> wrote: As an oversighter, I can review these edits, and I can tell you that, while some may consider it simple vandalism, the edits contained potentially libelous information about a person or persons that is unsuitable for public consumption. The suppressions met the criteria for removal from view to everyone, including administrators. Such edits are now more routinely being suppressed because (a) we have the technical ability to do so without creating problems in the database and (b) there is greater sensitivity to the potential for serious harm for potentially libelous information to remain accessible. There is a significant difference between the trash-talking one frequently sees (particularly in regard to living persons) such as "X is a f***ing a**hole", and a blatant unsourced allegation of wrongdoing by the article`s subject such as "X murdered his second wife``; the former would simply be reverted, while the latter qualifies for suppression. Risker

Incidentally, if the oversighted edits concerned a certain gentleman and his alleged predilection for oral copulation, then that vandal has returned to the article.

On 24 Feb 2010, at 18:15, Risker wrote: I don't see the need for this. Can't we simply delete it as per normal, rather than oversighting? Do we not trust the administrators? Do we really need an extra layer of bureaucracy on top of them for this sort of thing? I can see the need for oversight when there is truly problematic and confidential information that is posted, but this example does not meet my standards for that (unless lawyers were involved). (Disclaimer: I am an admin on en.wp.) User:Mike_Peel