[WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs

[Carcharoth]

Will, look at the example I provided earlier in this thread.
Established editors and admins were blindly reverting vandalism and
leaving an article in a state of previous vandalism. How do you begin
to address that problem?

I don't want to link to the revisions in question, as the attacks are
quite nasty (look at the revert I made and what it removed). Please do
go and look, and you will find a whole series of Huggle edits that
reverted the most recent vandalism, but still left the article in an
absolutely unacceptable state. Worse, this continued for a day or two
until I spotted what had been happening.

Carcharoth

On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 11:54 AM,  <wjhonson at aol.com> wrote:
> I did not suggest doc that "anyone can review".
> Review what I said again.
> I said that established users can review, that it should be an
> automatic right at a certain point and that admins cannot remove that
> right.
>
> That is quite different from "anyone".
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: doc <doc.wikipedia at ntlworld.com>
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 1:07 am
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs
>
> wjhonson at aol.com wrote:
>> I'm in agreement with David here.
>> I do not want to be a policeman on behaviour, but I would certainly
> be
>> interested in, and already do, patrol content changes and pass or
>> remove spurious details.  I think we all do that a bit.  Being a
>> policeman is quite a different role.
>>
>> So a flagged rev backlog will only be addressed if we allow all
>> established users to so address it, and deny the power to admins to
>> unseat a member of the group.  It should probably be automatic at a
>> certain edit count or length of stay or something of that nature.
>> There is absolutely no need to create any additional powers for
> admins,
>> and we already have process in place to handle people who are truly
>> disruptive to the system even though long-term participants.  We
> don't
>> need any more of that.
>>
>> Will Johnson
>>
>
> This makes flagged no more than a tool to reduce obvious vandalism -
> and
>  quite useless for protecting against real BLP harm (see my last post
> for reasoning).
>
> If we have "anyone can review" then we have "any incompetent can
> review"
>   and if admins can't quickly remove the reviewing right without
> process
> and paperwork then any good-faith incompetent will continue to review.
>
> Our current vandalism RCP system regularly screws up with BLP. It
> reverts people who blank libels - and seldom even casts a glance at the
> current state of any article. You think giving these same people more
> work will solve the subtler BLP problem?
>
> Again, if the bad edit is immediately obvious to the reviewer, it is
> also obvious to the reader - so it is not particularly damaging to the
> subject.
>
> I am of the opinion that full flagging will make little or no
> difference
> to the BLP problem. (That said, it can't do much harm - so let's try
> it). However, the current idiotic proposal is utterly useless and
> conterproductive.
>
> For far to long the flagging white elephant has been throw up as chaff
> to avoid any real steps on BLP harm reduction. For once, let's listen
> to
> the Germans who seem to have some useful things to teach us.
>
> Erik, or someone who knows, can you outline all the things de.wp does
> differently from en.wp - and whether it has less of a problem with
> legitimate subject complaints?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>