On 06/11/2007, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
This is, perhaps, not something that is easily shifted in preparation for an "edit Wikipedia week," but it is something we have to remember
- {{fact}} is in many cases preferable to reversion, notes on talk
pages are in many cases preferable to speedy deletion tags, vandalism should be dealt with as we see it, and even watched for, but should not be an obsession.
I think perhaps a better statement of that last sentence is "...should not be an assumption."
A lot of problems - certainly back when I was still regularly dealing with OTRS earlier in the year - came from patrollers assuming that an imperfect or confusing contribution was vandalism, was spam, was malicious. They acted accordingly - reverted or deleted and warned - which just confused and upset the subject.
"If it isn't clearly vandalism, don't treat it as vandalism" might be an interesting approach.