[WikiEN-l] Before reverting blanking, please read the text

[Peter Ansell]

On 20/10/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> Peter Ansell wrote:
> > On 20/10/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> But it is ABSOLUTELY INEXCUSABLE for a human to act in a manner which
> >> is no more intelligent than a bot. If you are not going to read when
> >> you revert a blanking, you should leave the work to a bot which will
> >> generally do a better, faster, and more consistent job than you ... a
> >> human who is pretending to be a bot.
> >
> > You contradict yourself.
>
> I'm also wondering why it isn't "ABSOLUTELY INEXCUSABLE" for the human
> who originally blanked the article to be acting in a manner that's no
> more intelligent than a bot as well. We grant newbies a lot of slack,
> and we grant the aggrieved victims of libel even more slack, but if the
> inexcusability of this is really absolute then in this case the original
> blanker is just as much in the wrong.
>
> Can we tone down the hyperbole a bit?
>
>

I have encountered people who are worried about pages, and rather than
blanking, they post messages on the "discussion" page. I know I always
listen to those messages, and they are infinitely more informative
than a new user blanking a page repeatedly. I still do not see why we
should be beaten down because of a mistake which was caused by their
lack of communication. As was said before, their should be informative
messages before blanking is allowed, so they can see the intelligent
options more clearly. Possibly even link directly to the BLP
noticeboard, which gets a large volume of traffic and can deal with
the sort of things that were so worrying in the single case that has
been demonstrated here.

Peter Ansell