[WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs

[WJhonson at aol.com]

In a message dated 4/2/2009 1:20:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
doc.wikipedia at 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)