In a message dated 4/2/2009 1:20:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time, doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com writes:

If reviewer right is wrongly removed - we'll have the internal problem of an upset editor (big deal? not - get over it!), however if it is granted to someone who misuses it then it breaches our quality control and can damage living people.

...

---------------------

Your fallacy is trying to restrict "reviewer" to the BLP issue. Imagine you are reviewing away at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And you get caught up in a wheel war between conflicting admins.

Effectively, under the scenario that any admins can remove reviewer rights you would have the situation that no non-admin reviewer could EVER review the article.

I'm sure you see this. This is not a new thing. We sign on more admins to take care of the backlogs, not to get into conflicts.

Giving them more conflict-creation powers is not a good thing, it's a bad thing.

Those people who are to grant or remove the reviewer right, need to be at a level *above* the "backlog cleanup crew", and "fight vandalism" people. Because that level is too fraught with article-space-conflicts, and additional content-effecting powers would just tend to create more of that, not less.

Will Johnson

************** Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001)